What's Wrong With Another Herald Sun

There's a difference between a newspaper and a tabloid, and there's a reason critics need to point out which is which.

Traditionally, a newspaper recorded the news in an objective way, seeking to offer only the facts, or when the facts were in dispute, offer an even coverage of both sides. This ensured that the public were as informed as they could be in order to make their own judgements. The original intention of newspapers were to keep the populace knowledgeable. More educated, knowledgable populations should be more effective and enlightened members of society.

Tabloids were formed to take on a more sensationalist approach to news. Most often, the focus is less on events and more on people, forming or reinforcing the notion of celebrity. The tabloid's goal is to make money by providing salacious details that feed the population's desire for the darker sides of people in the spotlight. In order to build up fervour in the readership, and as a result of the owners of these tabloids often exerting their influence over the readership, strong, one-sided opinion is used to sway the reader in a single direction.

One style of reporting seeks to lift the level of our knowledge and understanding, preferring truth as pure as possible; the other maintains base understanding and prefers falsities if they support a favourable outcome for the owner.

I give this basic explanation because I worry that enough people don't necessarily know the difference. The apparent most-read newspaper in Australia is the Herald Sun. They say they are a newspaper. It's more often alleged they are a tabloid. To confuse the two is dangerous, especially if you value truth (or if you don't want to be accused of being intelligent, as seems to be a genuine desire). This is the front page of the Herald Sun from a few days back. Which do you think it is?:

The Budget for the Poor Middle Class

A quick examination of the Herald Sun's coverage of the budget, because I'm not sure if kids are being taught about bias in school.

Here's the front page:


Let's start with the agenda. The Herald Sun generally don't like the Labor party, or perhaps prefer the Liberal party (I purposely did not say the Coalition). You can find evidence of this when you look at their coverage of past budgets under Howard and Costello, when Costello would be posed as a Superman of finance, literally shown wearing blue and red tights and cape.

The paper's aim is to make you dislike Labor's budget. The headline clearly sets out the mission statement, evoking 'unfairness' by reducing the entire budget into a snappy one-liner. After that, you might notice the brightly colored graphic:


What the hell does this have to do with anything, you might ask? Admiral Akbar would reply, "It's a trap!" The idea is to ask a question that most of us will answer, 'of course not!' to, warming up our blood because it's all so unfair. You'll notice they don't specify what rich might be, allowing our imaginations to form images of besuited CEOs and stuffy snobs in manors, sliding down money piles: the horrible moneybags we love to hate. Compared to 'the rich', a $150k family seems normal, regular, just like us.

From there, it's a full assault on the budget in relation to this $150k family. The paper shows only the downsides, costs and losses, none of the benefits like the car write off for tradies or small business owners. They run stories about struggling, suffering and scrimping families, but nothing about lower wage earners, students, pensioners or childless families. They unleash Miranda Devine from the opinion page.





Finally, they wrap up their coverage with a bookend graphic, this time showing overwhelmingly that YOU won't be better off with this budget. Never mind that they have no idea who you are, and that the voters in the poll make up only a small subsection of the populous who read the Herald Sun and are thus inclined to agree with it in the first place. (Note: below is the online version, which varies slightly from the print version above)


By now, we've been shown enough of an attack on this $150k family, the family that compared to the Monopoly guy, is full of saints and battlers, seemingly being ravaged by an unfair budget. The stuff the Herald Sun doesn't run keeps us from seeing the bigger picture. The budget affects THE NATION, not just one demographic slice of the population. The Herald Sun are trying to manipulate you, dear reader, by showing you the side of the story that benefits the paper the most. Their readers are generally this $150k family. Their owners prefer pro-business, conservative governments and consumers. Whether you agree with the budget or not, remember to look at the whole picture, not just one side's framing, before you judge.

Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't he dead already?

A real conversation I just had.

Nurse: Have a good ride over?

Me: Yep! Was listening to the news.

Nurse: Tut tut, that's not very safe.

Me: Nah, it's all right. It was big news.

Nurse: *blank look*

Me: Bin Laden's dead. The President announced it.

Nurse: *blankness persists* Another one, was it?

Me: Sorry?

Nurse: Didn't they get the sons and cousins last week? Is this another one?

Me: Oh, no that's Gadaffi. Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda? September 11.

Nurse: Aw yeah. I was in the right area, different person. Didn't they get him already?

Me: No, that was one of his underlings. A while ago.

Nurse: Oh. Well what happens now?

Me: Probably not much. There's always other leaders who'll step up.

Nurse: So it doesn't really matter, does it.

Me: Well...

Nurse: I thought you had big news about Prince Will and Pip, what's her name, Pippa?

Me: You mean Will and Kate?

Nurse: Oh yes, that one. Any news on them?

Me: God no, er, I don't know.

Nurse: Mmm. Just lie back for me, darl.

Location:Clayton Rd,Clayton,Australia

To Be A Nerd: Patton Oswalt and Nerdism

Patton Oswalt wrote a compelling and interesting article on nerdery, pop culture and subculture. It could be considered the co-theory of Pop Will Eat Itself: Nerds Will Eat Themselves, Throw It All Up and Coat the World. (The article)

I got to thinking a little bit. 'Nerd' as it was used in the eighties and, certainly for me, the nineties, wasn't just about what you liked, or to borrow Oswalt's vernacular, what you lined your thought-palace with. Being called a nerd was as much about the people who did the name calling in the first place. You can't be called something without someone calling. To be a nerd was to like something different, weird, not part of the mainstream. We liked things the cool kids weren't aware of, and that made them dislike us but it also made us special.

I don't think that defining aspect of nerdism is gone. True, nerd culture is now pop culture, but that just means a different set of likes and small joys that sit outside the mainstream are being devoured by a new, different set of neo-nerds. Maybe using the word 'nerd' to describe an outcast kid is off-base now, and we need a new word. It should be easy to find: simply go down to the nearest schoolyard and eavesdrop on the words being spat at by those outcasts.

Nerd used to be derisive, or maybe you've forgotten. I think everyone's always been a weak Otaku, they've just had different things to obsess over. From a housewife in the fifties discussing the best laundry detergent with her friends to a member of the Vienese court, waxing lyrical over Beethoven in 1795. What really made a nerd, back in my day, was that what you liked was scorned by the mainstream, but you loved it anyway.

I'm certain those signifiers still exist today. What are they, do you think? In an age where Boba Fett and comic books are cool, what isn't?

We Win The Commonwealth!

Mr Kevin Rudd emails me when cool shit happens and yesterday afternoon he dropped me an electronic communication to let me know that he beat the ever loving crap out of the other Commonwealth cunts and as a victory, we host the next battle royal on Australian shores in 2011! The blood bath doesn't have a definite location yet, but K-Rudd let slip that the Foreign Minister would tell us where we can park out SUVs to get the best view of smackdown some time today.

I don't know about you, but that PM Keys has been asking for a slap in the chops for a while now, and I can't wait for Killer Kevin to put The Silver Tongued PM Singh on his head PILEDRIVER style. Bring on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Tour 2011.

YeeeeeaaaaaaAAAAAAHHHHHH

Swiss Miss and Bubye Connex

Connex are gone. Ding dong. Lots of people are writing about it in the news today, but one article was simple and thoughtful. Even the pun in the title, a practice I hate, is forgiven because it actually fits in smoothly with the sentiment, instead of the horrendous forced monstrosities usually printed.
'Goodbye Connex, but will the news guys fare better?'
Clay Lucas shows a rare journalistic quality in this article: the ability to write. He uses time tested methods, like introducing a tantalising topic at the beginning that seems at odds with the title, then bringing that around nicely to the issue at hand. He then lays out structured arguments and information to support them and doesn't stray off into areas that lack the relevance of his chosen points. Finally, he pulls it into the station with a reference back to his introduction and the world seems whole. Kudos Clay, kudos.

Also in the news, Switzerland and their super democracy hold a referendum that ushers in the banning of any new minarets being built. This is pretty weird, wouldn't you say? I mean, what the hell is a minaret? It sounds like a move employed by ballet dancers, and no one wants to ban them, ever. Even the Chinese dig a pink tutu. A minaret is a tall tower, usually with a pointy onion top.

They are commonly built along side mosques (the big, wider onion is the mosque) and are a Muslim thing, as far as this story is concerned. My girlfriend pointed out that Russia is littered with these too, and I appreciated her concern for the poor Ruso-Swiss...OK guys. I have to admit something to you right now. It's kind of personal so I don't want you to make a big deal about it, cool? That ellipses you see up there, the three dots? Yeah, well during that ellipses, I actually got sidetracked watching Ask A Ninja interview Will Ferrel and Napoleon Dynamite. From there, well, I got on the YouTube train, had a layover at Facebook central and might have popped over to Coke Street for a couple of giddy minutes. Once I came back here I may have, just a little...well, I lost interest. I'm not proud of it, but there it is.

So, to wrap up, when the calmest, most laid back, neutralist kid in school starts getting nervous and laying into the Muslim kid, you gotta wonder what that Muslim kid did to be so focussed on. Maybe we're all going a little bit nuts? I don't know. That's why I'm not an expert.

Wilmingburg Murder-Suicide a Marriage Indictment

When Jose Wilmingburg held the gun to his head at 8:17am on a Monday morning, he ended the life of a family that by all accounts should have been happy. Jose was a CAT scan technician at his local hospital, where he'd met his partner 25 years ago. Jose married the oncology nurse and the couple raised four beautiful children. The children were average, regular kids. In fact the eldest, Frederico, was a young up-and-comer in his school football team. The coach later spoke to the press, explaining how Jose would drop Rico off at training and stay around to watch, speaking to the coach in order to get the best tips for his son's practice later at home. From Rico to the second youngest were all boys - George and Robert. They all adored their youngest sibling, a two year old girl, Vanessa, and made sure her every waking moment was overseen by one of her brothers. A neighbour joked they treated her as if they were her bodygaurds on rotating shifts.

Their home life was normal and Jose's work at the hospital started for the most admirable of reasons - he simply wanted to help people. Raised by his grandmother and father, Jose saw the effects of degenerative Alzheimer's slowly rob his Nana of her mental faculties, and he vowed to learn how to prevent the same fate from befalling others. His marks at high school and college were modest, but his pleasant attitude got him into the local hospital and under the eye of his supervisor. Mr. Geraldo saw his employee's aptitude for gadgets and encouraged him to join the technician's field. From there, Jose picked his favourite machine, the CAT scan, a device used to pick up irregularities in the brain, and continued working with the machine for 10 years. Jose's workplace was normal.

The only abnormality was his partner, the oncology nurse Maria. Jose was married to a woman.

"I admit, I thought it was odd to say the least, but he's my son, so I supported him 100%." Mr. Jose Wilmingburg Sr is the spitting image of his deceased son, only the ravages of time have tanned and wrinkled his face. He looks at a photo of his son as we compare it with an old photo of himself. "I'd heard the stories from town and some of the more nosy family members actually wanted me to intervene. Especially when they decided to have kids. Oh lordy, my sister was horrified. But like I said, he's my son, and I loved those grand kids, no matter how strange it was that Jose raised them with a mother."

It's all these regularities that might throw one off the scent of why Jose took a shotgun to his wife and four children, then took his own life. Money wasn't a problem, but it wasn't free flowing either. The couple had both been fired just a month before for forging a supervisor's signature in order to get the children into a publicly funded child care centre. But surely this isn't enough to throw Jose off the deep end and commit an act considered the most unnatural - the murder of his own offspring and the person he loved most. The woman he loved most.

I think it wouldn't be a shock to admit that the family wasn't normal. A man living with a woman and raising children isn't the most sane of ideas. The debaucherous elements of the couple's 'lifestyle,' couldn't be hidden from the absorbent minds of their kids. Even the most avid TV watching child is aware of what mummy and daddy are doing in their bedroom. It's not just celebrities who are weak against their own dark appetites or damaging habits.

Jose and Maria, by all accounts, were completely normal except for one glaring difference. The family, despite their particular penchant, were described as happy and healthy by even the most ardent protesting neighbours. A happy, healthy family man does not creep into his children's room and pull the trigger.

We cannot and would not dream of diminishing the dreadful circumstance, most of all for the surviving grandparents who now must see their children and grandchildren buried, but another sadness of this tragic story is the blow struck to the happy-ever-after myth of heterosexual marriage.

Not all male-female couples are cast from the troubled, some might some depraved molds of Bonnie and Clyde or Michel 'Virgin Hunter' Fourniret and his wife Monique Olivier, a heterosexual married couple who, over the period of 16 years, lured virgin girls into their midst so that Fourniret could rape and murder them while Olivier watched. But the murder-suicide of an entire hetero family forces us to ask some serious questions about the viability, morality and at the very least, safety of a male-female marriage.

It would seem that yet again the quiet peace of the suburbs is ruined by the steady seep of a dangerous and uncertain lifestyle. Perhaps the Wilmingburg family is the wake up call we all need.

Edit: Unsure what triggered this blog post? See here.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Australian Racism

There's a prevailing attitude among the everyday people of Australia that the Hey Hey Jackson Jive skit was not in fact racist, and that it's a storm in a tea cup. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is displaying emotions that range from curious amusement, disappointment, right up to outrage that this skit appeared on live TV. The host Daryl Somers, Channel 9 and the lead performer himself, Dr Anand Deva have all apologised. All three have taken up the shield of ignorance, stating it was never their intention to offend.

There can be no denial the performers were in blackface, but maybe a lot of Australians don't truly understand what blackface is? Here's a definition from Wikipedia:

Blackface ... is a style of theatrical makeup that originated in the United States, used to take on the appearance of certain archetypes of American racism, especially those of the "happy-go-lucky darkyplantation" or the "dandified coon ".^[1] Blackface in the broader sense includes similarly stereotyped performances even when they do not involve blackface makeup. White blackface performers in the past used ... shoe polish to blacken their skin and exaggerate their lips, often wearing woolly wigs, gloves, tailcoats, or ragged clothes to complete the transformation. Stereotypes embodied in the stock characters of blackface minstrelsy played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images, attitudes and perceptions worldwide. In some quarters, the caricatures that were the legacy of blackface persist to the present day and are a cause of ongoing controversy. By the mid-20th century, changing attitudes about race and racism effectively ended the prominence of blackface makeup used in performance in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The Jackson Jive was a blackface performance. It was originally performed 2 decades ago, during the 1980s - a time, clearly, when racism was more present. Today, Australia lives in a globalised world with the United States one of its most dominant economic and military powers. In this world, our leaders are or should be trying to puch us further towards the centre of stage. Ours is a lucky country with potential and intelligence. But how can we be a part of the world and ignore our strongest ally's own advancements in civil rights? The nation now has a Nobel winning black President, in a land where blackface originated and where black people were lynched.

And here are five Australian men, an Australian TV network and a television show known as a national institution doing blackface. What. Were. They. Thinking? Whether they meant to offend or not, it was racist. What were the producers and the network executives thinking? Or, in what era were they thinking from? One of my biggest complaints has always been that the gatekeepers of Aussie arts and entertainment are old men with outdated, foolish attitudes to the world. No more clearly is this represented than when a TV exec or producer, someone who should be fully aware that YouTube, viral videos and the Internet means that what you put on a national screen has every possibility of being seen by the world for weeks to come, and who have chosen an American actor and singer to appear on the show, would then put blackface in front of the cameras.

It reminds me of your old uncle, in his late fifties, making all sorts of racist jokes at the Christmas dinner table. And you know he's (probably) not being malicious, he just honestly doesn't know any better. He's the product of his time. You might smile thinly or leave the room, but you find solace in the notion that maybe he says these things, but he'd never turn his back on a lynching or shoot an Aboriginal in a carpark if no-one was looking and he knew he'd get away with it. Growing up, this example was everywhere, with all the people I met in my outer suburb childhood. The attitude towards people of different skin was also hostile, negative, but thinly veiled and only ever in the privacy of homes, during family dinners or in front of the TV. But it was there, and I got the feeling it was in the majority of homes in Australia. I worried, most certainly justifiably, that it was something in me, from my own upbringing. And it made me sad.

Sad that as a nation, we stunt our own growth. I hope that this country can be a shining beacon, a nation who became strong without wars to liberate, but who used education and social responsibility to export both goodwill and knowledge along with traditional trade, to become recognised as a peaceful, happy, friendly, strong country of advancement and civility.

But let's look at the buffoons who stand in the way of that hope.

From the various articles I read online, the most infuriating parts came from the comments section, where these everyday Australians cemented the current world view of our nation (all quotes are sic):

K from Mackay 

Well, the fun police strike again Harry needs a uniform,baton and a whistle! i thought it was hilariously funny and i'm a black fella!

Luke from Melbourne 

Harry is not suited to Hey hey, hes too uptight, he needs a dose of reality and clearly has the typical USA mentality.

Scott from Adelaide

Where was the racism? The comment prior to the Jackson Jive coming on was "a tribute to the Jackson Five". So that, for all the people claiming it was racist, should have told them otherwise prior. Get over your arrogance. They respected Michael and his family, but you don't.

Certain Australian news sites also had user polls, asking variously if the sketch was racist, tasteless, funny. The results were either divided down the middle or skewed in favour of the notion that the skit was not racist or offensive. Some might say, "Well, see, the poll says no." I say, why do you even need to poll on that!? Of course it was racist, and the very fact that our nation can be divided on that in the first place is both sickening and sad.

Yes, the sketch was based on one that won Red Faces 20 years ago. That's the point! Shouldn't we be watching this from 20 years ago and thinking, "Oh god, that's embarrassing, we used to think that was OK." That sort of racism used to be acceptable, but now it's not. All that argument does is show that the arguer is stuck in some bizarre time warp where the rest of the world didn't realise they were being horrible to black slaves and started trying to repair the damage done. If thinking like an American means I find racism offensive, then someone give me a greencard! Do you really want to revel in that sort of thing? Do you really want to shrug off the evil connotations and horrid history of blackface by saying, "Nah, it was just a joke!" What sort of person does that make you?

Harry Connick Jr. was on the show and he did not like it. He stood up and demanded satisfaction. He did what thousands of his countrymen for hundreds of years did not do: he stood up for civil rights and against mocking and patronising and other instruments used to demean and keep down an entire race.

I think this whole debacle exposes that inherent racism in the Australian character. A racism born from isolation and cultivated by ignorance - a special sort of ignorance. For while we educate ourselves in science and medicine and technology, the education in social responsibility and global understanding is lackluster. Being clever in other areas lets us keep the racism hidden. Australians live in a multicultural country, but yet I say we're racists? It's a strange sort of racism, an amorphous blob that only takes shape when events like these pop up. It's racism by stealth. It's a bottom-up racism. Our leaders, our public people, they wear the badges of moral and social responsibility so that we don't have to. A politician openly encourages multiculturalism. An Australian citizen tolerates it, buts mocks it ruthlessly behind closed doors.

Look at the culprit, one Dr Anand Deva. I truly don't believe he fully understands what racism is when he says:

I am an Indian, and five of the six of us are from multicultural backgrounds and to be called a racist ... I don't think I have ever been called that ever in my life before. Anyone who knows us as a group, we are intelligent people, we are all from different racial backgrounds so I am really truly surprised.

When asked whether he would have performed the act in the US, he replied:

Absolutley not!

He just doesn't get it. He seems to think that just because he's Indian and his cohorts were from different backgrounds, then they are exempt from being racist - the idea of which is in itself racist! My point is, he doesn't seem to understand. A lot of Australians don't, and I think they need to be educated. Better, they have the internal drive to learn and educate themselves. Racism isn't something restricted to the borders of the USA. It isn't something that exists only between white Westerners and African descended black Americans. It's a worldwide plague that is very simple in its thinking, but lethal in application: to discriminate or negatively affect in any way one person or group of people based on the colour of their skin or cultural background, because it is different from your own. That is racism. That sort of thinking caused blackface to become popular, as white Americans slapped their knees during minstrel shows and remarked boorishly, "Oh ho! Look at that stupid nigger!" The Americans realised, finally, in the 1960-70s with civil rights movements and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr right up to now, with the first black President, that that sort of thinking was wrong at the most fundamental level of humanity.

And now, here in 2009, Australia shows a bunch of ignorant fools doing blackface.

I'm not saying we should surgically remove our sense of humour; that we should batten down the hatches and become a police state. I just think there are parts of our national character that need work, just as the most stable and respectable person is constantly striving to better him or herself. We are a great country, but to ever be as great as our potential, we need to be able to look at ourselves and make changes. We need to think more, to intellectualise, to drag ourselves out of the slow, sometimes backwards crawl of our social advancement. We need to look to those that have shown the way, and we need to be open to the idea that we can and have failed, but that we can learn from those mistakes and rectify our future.  Australia is a country of greatness, but it could be greater still. Isn't that something you want to be proud of? Isn't that something we can acheive?

Polanski Can Suck It

RT @droob: Way to be a dick, film industry http://bit.ly/8te6u

What the hell? He raped a kid! He gave up his freedom when he broke the law. So what, just because Polanski goes on to make great films, he should be granted immunity? What the fuck does cultural significance have to do with a rape case? And since when was a film festival a sacrosanct holy land where the law doesn't matter? By their logic, footballers should be allowed to break laws if they win a superbowl a few times, and should never be arrested on their way to a game.

I'm sorry, but Polanski got to avoid facing the justice system for decades. To bitch now is a slap in Lady Luck's face. Now he gets his day in court, and if found innocent, then there you go. If guilty, he committed a crime! And if Scorsese, Lynch, Woody and the gang don't like it, they can pay for his lawyers and appeals - but don't stand in the way of your country's justice system, you arrogant fucks.

Jeez. I mean, who the hell said these filmmaking pricks were in charge of extradition law and court procedure?

Oh, and to top it all off, Polanski’d already pleaded guilty but fled before sentencing, while appeals are still open to him anyway. He's a freakin' fugitive by the very definition of the word.

R 18+ Ratings for Video Games

In Australia, the R 18+ rating for video games doesn't exist. If a game if deemed too violent, sexual or otherwise for the MA 15+ rating, it is given an RC (Refused Classification), which means it is banned from import. Anyone raided and caught selling the game will be fined. Most often, what happens is the developer edits and/or removes the offensive parts of the game and resubmits it to the Office of Film and Literature. If it's now clean enough, it gets the highest allowed rating of MA and ends up on our shelves.

Games that have been RC include most recently, Dark Sector, Manhunt, Marc Ecko's Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure, Reservoir Dogs, BMX XXX, Blitz: The League, and Postal 2.
These games most often were banned for violence considered too real, too connected to sex or shown in too positive a light (usually incorporating incentives for violence), however, you'll notice Mark Ecko's Getting Up can shut down because of its portrayal of graffiti. A fuller list of RC titles and their subsequent outcomes can be found here.

There's been a lot of outcry from gamers and industry folks who really, really want the R rating for games so as to stop the absolute banning of games. Similarly, there are those on the other side of the fence who are rather happy it's not around, as it removes unwanted threats. Instead of bitching about it in the dark, I decided to go right to the source - I emailed the OFLC and asked, simply and quickly, Dear members of the classification board, I was hoping you could please answer this simple question for me: Why do you not provide an R rating for video games in Australia? I'm eager to understand why, thanks very much, Simon J. Green.

To my surprise, I received a hard copy letter, mailed to me in the post, from the Attorney-General's Department, Territories and Information Law Division. The letter is a fascinating insight into the minds of those people who make the laws of our country, the very heart of the matter. I invite you all to read it and discuss what you think. (Names and contact details have been blanked for privacy)

Link to Page 1
Link to Page 2
or download in a .zip

For a big fat discussion and history on this topic, I suggest you read the excellent Cnet article Censory Overload: Games censorship in Australia.

The 'Cheaper Books' Debate

Cheaper books as a result of removing import restrictions could result in local industry weakening

A Lateline report on the issue, giving both sides.

And here is the Cheaper Books Coalition

This debate has been going on for a couple of months now. It first popped on to my radar while working on 9AM with David and Kim (shudder). Seminal children's author Morris Gleitzman came on in opposition of the proposed changes to Australian federal law. A commission has recommended the following:

In its final report on the parallel importation of books, it recommended the lifting of all restrictions after a three-year adjustment period; the rejigging of financial assistance to the book industry; a new survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics; and a review of the brave new world after five years.

It said the current legislation, under which Australian publishers have 30 days to publish editions of books published overseas or face competing editions, stopped booksellers from importing "cheaper or better-value-for-money editions". - http://www.theage.com.au/national/publishers-fight-cheap-books-20090714-dk61.html

They're called the The Productivity Commission, and right there I point out the first problem. This recommendation comes from a group whose sole purpose is to explore how books can be made cheaper, how the industry can be more efficient, how price tags can be more satisfying for consumers. It's a commission whose inherent purpose is always going to completely ignore the content and industry of books, because it is launched from the side of the consumer.

Sometimes, if you want to maintain good quality local industry - hell, if you want 'good things' to exist at all, you need to avoid the path to cheap. Cheap doesn't mean good. It doesn't mean better quality. It doesn't mean safety or security. It just means that in the long run, some company is making more money off its consumer. If you buy something cheaper, it usually means somewhere, some corner was cut. At the end of the day, the marketplace is looking for a higher profit margin. Are TVs cheaper now? Yes. Are the more expensive ones better than a TV off Safeway's shelf? Certainly.

And just because rules are installed that allow for cheaper books to be imported doesn't equate to a consumer getting cheaper books. There is a chain of supply between the overseas publisher and you at the checkout. Let's look at an example:

Dymocks currently sells Ivory, by Australian author Tony Park for $32.99. Let's say Dymocks buys the book from its Australian supplier for $25. It's making a $7.99 profit. Now let's imagine that the parallel import law is changed, and Dymocks can buy the book from international publishers for $19. Let's also say it's been three years since the law changed, and Dymocks had been selling select books at low prices during special sales to commemorate the law change, but that slowly faded as people forgot the ruckus. They now have the opportunity to make a $13.99 profit by selling the book at the regular price of $32.99, a price we are all used to paying. Do you really think Dymocks, a large corporation who have always said they're about the price of books, a company whose directors, by law, need to do what's best for the company, are NOT going to increase their profit margin? What does history tell us? Does it tell us that large company directors do what's good for the little people? NO.

An example brought up in the debate is a very similar situation that occurred about 10 years ago with the music industry. CDs used to be protected by local copyright laws, meaning locally published versions had to be sold first. The same argument - that we can get cheaper CDs! - was put forward and ultimately won out. In the above Lateline link, a pro-change supporter said this:

PROFESSOR ALLAN FELS: I think the record industry story is very clear. We removed the restrictions a number of years ago. Prices did come down, and the local music industry is flourishing. It's flourishing like never before

Um... really? Because the way I see it, we had a massive collapse in independent music retailers (who sold far more local bands than the majors do now), our own Mushroom Records disappeared and every band who wants to make it has fled to the States or Europe while our local industry is flooded by half baked talent rejected from Australian Idol. Meanwhile, CDs are still around the $30 to $40 mark.

As an entrepreneur, I like to hope I have a bit of an understanding about industry and business. If I was running a local publishing house instead of a video production company, I'd be horrified by this turn of events. If they suddenly told me that Australian TV no longer must have x amount of hours of local content, but can freely import cheaper TV 24-7, we'd be decimated because the big companies that own and buy do not care about local content, they care about the bottom line. There's a responsibility of members of an industry, from the producer through to the seller, to actually support the local industry it's a part of. If its own members start rabidly undercutting or going overseas, the local part of the industry shrivels. It's good to have cheaper elements to keep companies going, but the sacrifice is quality and local support.

The biggest argument among all this is that books are not a bland, heartless commodity. A book isn't a TV. It isn't rice. It's a work of art that one person dedicated his or her entire soul to producing. The end result isn't a buyer or consumer, it's a reader. An audience member. This isn't a product they're buying, it's a holy tome, something that has the potential to touch them deeply, stay with them for the rest of their lives. It's also something written by an Australian, for an Australian. Gleitzman, back on 9AM, told us how overseas, they print versions of his and other Australian authors' books that change phrases, sentences, paragraphs, entire locations and settings to remove the Australianisms and replace them with more familiar American alternatives. When a foreign publisher publishes our books, they change them, then sell them back to us at a cheaper price.

So the real question you have to ask is do you want Possum Magic to be about a squirrel eating twinkies?

Oldskool.TV - I got a new writing gig

I got a new gig writing for Oldskool.TV, a group of peeps who put on parties for uni students. They have a bunch of comedy blogs that I am now a contributing writer to. Check out my first two below, you sexy beasts. Beware, though, it's a little on the crude side!

Indian Witchdoctor

http://www.oldskool.tv/blogs.php?blogid=14&postid=11759

Michael Cera and Charlyne Yi

http://www.oldskool.tv/blogs.php?blogid=14&postid=11760

China is Moving In

Two issues have led me to this post today:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25814479-913,00.html
which details the investment of a large Chinese company in two South Australian mines, and
http://www.theage.com.au/national/china-pulls-films-out-of-festival-20090721-ds2a.html
which describes the pulling out of three Chinese films from the Melbourne International Film Festival because of the inclusion of a fourth film about Uyghur leader Rebiya Kadeer.
Supplementary to these is another issue that's been floating around,
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/13/content_8421122.htm
a Chinese businessman's full purchase of a British satellite TV station.

What we're seeing, and have been seeing for a few years now is China's expansion into the world. The Chinese government's foreign policies certainly stand out against European and Western ways. Some might say they are very sensitive, often demanding apologies or changes to events and schedules outside of their own country. There have always been certain naming demands placed upon organisers of the Olympics, forcing competitor countries' names to be changed to reflect the deigning of the PRC. Awards given to celebrated figures are often rebuffed and complained about if their achievements conflict with China's values. And then there's Tibet. I personally applaud countries and organisations that ignore China's outcries and do what's right for those being honoured, because even though our planet is becoming more of a global community, thus giving everyone the right to speak up, it still means that individual states play a major role in fostering and protecting their own cultures. Those cultures and the values inherent therein cannot be forced onto other nations.

It's this belief that has me alarmed when I see the Chinese pulling their films out of MIFF. It shows an ugly lack of tolerance and reveals a rather forceful agenda that can only end in confrontation. As Chinese interests start to expand out of their country due to the fervent embrace of capitalism (at the expense of an increasingly enslaved populace), Australia in particular welcome our neighbour's larger role in trade. However, there is an obvious concern that the Chinese way may be channelled through these trading avenues, in a way that more conspiratorial minds might see as subversive cultural attack.

The Onion have demonstrated their concerns with their rather vicious satirical attack on the expansion of Chinese business into western media, and while there are hints of an alarmist response, the point is not lost on those who watch with a keen interest as the last great Red state starts to play a greater role in the world and rises as the new superpower. Rivalries are imminent and if the early indicators are the sign of a trend, I fear that confrontation (most likely with the United States) is inevitable. It's a scary, interesting, but maybe hopeful time.

Celebralypse

It's really sad that MJ died. I always maintained that despite the controversy, the man wrote friggin' kick-arse music and danced like a maniac. Very few folks had such a huge sense of showmanship - and Moonwalker was awesome. It's almost a pity he didn't die earlier to immortalise his fame in the same way Hutchence, Cobain and Morrison did before him. He would have avoided the darker part of the Jackson legend.
Either way, I'm gonna miss the guy's style and it's a shame we couldn't see the three year tour he had planned.

On a lighter note, my sister Amy and I came up with some cracking headlines if any journos need some for the passing of Farrah Fawcett. Ready? Ahem...(poor taste warning)

• Fawcett Turned Off.
• Fawcett's Last Drip.
• Farrah-way.

Pretty good, huh?

News of the Future: Movie Edition

With nuclear spring coming early this year, we got a scoop preview on some of the blockbuster flicks headed to your cinegoggles in time for the holidays.

We'll be seeing the franchise film dominate playlists in 2132, with Michael Myers, Pumpkinhead and the kid's favourite green ogre, Shrek making the headlines.

Long time genre fans are keen to watch the unstoppable Michael Myers in his 35th appearance, Halloween 3: Murder Magnetism. With the Halloween behemoth in it's fourth cycle of remakes, we asked rap artist turned director The Terminus how he plans to keep the white faced killer fresh.

"What we gonna do is, we gonna bring him into the post-racial Mars environment. Myers has always been a creature of his time, but he adapts, right? That's what I remember from the first bunch of remakes anyway. So what we gonna do is make his mask black and see how he takes care of horny teenagers on colonised Mars n' shit."

Speaking of adapting, Hollywood loves innovation and with stabilised cloning celebrating it's 100th anniversary, Universal WarnerFox have scheduled two Pumpkinhead films to coincide. Both will be directed by American McGees, with McGee3 bringing us Pumpkinhead vs Pinhead while McGee4 works on the prequel to last year's box-office smash. Rumour of a deeper look into Pumpkinhead's origin was confirmed when the much loved auteur spoke to us Friday.

"Yes, we will indeed be examining Pumpkinhead's family life. We've got a great young actor from New Canada called Stewart Fung playing the baby demon... well, that is, his embryonic DNA will be used to synthesise a virus that turns little Fung into a mutant shaped as a pumpkinhead demon. We think people are going to love it, and the tie in with my cellular copy's Versus film should be great!"

The technique of giving birth to synthesised non-human characters is still facing controversy as protest groups complain decomposition of used bodies is nowhere near biodegradable enough. At present, city dumps are holding these scientific breakthroughs, but public health groups are demanding concession pricing so that cast off bodies can be put on litter-rockets launched weekly into space.

McGee4's response? "All I know is it's a hell of a lot cheaper than employing the CG guys!"

Lastly, one for the kiddies in the return of the King of Far, Far Away. Shrek was last seen trundling off into the sunset eight years ago in the memorable sign off film Shrek 46: Shrek of Green Gables. His offsider Puss in Boots has been carrying the Dreamworks franchise ever since, but his next outing will bring back the grumpy green giant. Multi-Oscar winning DirectorBot 239 has churned out the 58th Shrek film, titled Puss in Boots 3: Shrek, and Dreamworks spokesman Steven Green had this to say about the exciting come back:

"Look, we all love Puss in Boots. Some have said we love him more than Shrek or even Princess Fiona, but we took the public's temperature and they want a return to grass roots values. That's why, for this film, we did something a little different. Instead of feeding DirectorBot 239 a bunch of slightly outdated cultural references and letting him hack out a script that way, we fed him Christian propoganda and bibles. This new Shrek film is going to keep everyone where they should be: at home. And all to a hip cover of the Baha Men's classic, Who Let The Dogs Out."

With no cast, crew or even equipment outside of DirectorBot's internal processors, Puss in Boots 3: Shrek will be ready almost immediately after its announcement date.

That's it for movie news. This is Sylvia Staph, it's 2132 and you're watching E!²

Media Watch testifies on The Chaser

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2592383.htm

Media Watch, whom I love dearly, tell it like it is. Funnily enough, I find the request by one radio DJ for listeners to find out Chaser addresses more irresponsible and wrong than the Chaser skit, yet I won't live to see the day right-wing Nazi nutcases are taken off the air...

The Chaser

You probably know the story. The media jumped right on it, and if
you're their typical, ignorant suburban moron of an audience, you got
sucked right up into the cretinous, transparent farce of outrage they
created. You didn't even bother to watch the sketch, as you were too
lazy to actually think for yourself and said 'I don't want to see that
filth.' Or worse, you watched it and weren't offended or even giggled,
but at work wouldn't dare express as such, as you have to tow the line.

And to be straightforward, 'the media' means tabloid newspaper (though
I struggle to see how the compromised drek they publish is news) The
Melbourne Herald Sun and its pathetic interstate equivalents. I mean
The Age, once something above bias blood boiling (or is that romantic
nostalgia lying to me?). I mean Channel 7, 9 and 10 news, who I know
for a fact will eschew the truth and gleefully ignore fact to put the
most sensationalist slant on events. I was in the news room of one of
them the day Heath Ledger died, and their treatment of hearsay as
newsworthy was disgusting and irresponsible.

I'm referring to The Chaser's 'Make a Realistic Wish' sketch and the
fact that the show has been suspended for two weeks by the ABC as a result.

I didn't want to be another gnattering online voice adding my words to
an already polluted pool of bullshit. I figured the furore would
simply go through the news cycle, receive overblown but cursory
attention and then disappear. The Chaser would go on doing what they'd
been doing: making occasionally controversial comedy in a free,
democratic first world country where you can say what you like, so
long as it isn't illegal, and be shut down if they don't rate well.

But things have gone too far. Now, free speech has been impinged upon. It
boils down to this age old paraphrase, "I don't like what you say, but
I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." The ABC however - a
channel that doesn't rely on advertising and thus can't even hide
behind the capitalist giant - has not only lowered its sword against
a rabid mob, but turned on its own and thrust.

How dare the ABC take punitive measures against The Chaser! Did the
Powers That Be not have a chance to view the show and decide the
material was too controversial? If they didn't view it then they are
the ones who were not doing as they should. If they did view the show
and let it pass, then they are hypocritical bastards for not sticking
to their convictions. Either way, whoever made the decision to
suspend is a pathetic coward. The ABC have effectively made the same
decision the public made in order to crucify The Chaser so; that The
Chaser truly meant to kick sick children and deliberately offend them
and their loved ones. The press release Chaser will send out shortly
says that of course they never meant to. And, honestly, even if they
did, they should bloody well be allowed to! Democracy and free speech
doesn't mean you can pick and choose. If you don't like what someone
says, you have every right to rebut. You don't have the right to
silence the speaker. If you want that, join the Taliban, you
sanctimonious, self-righteous pricks.

Is this the way it is now? You can only make content on TV if the
great unwashed masses are comfortable with it? I despise everyone who had a hand in this.

Note: I should mention that some of what I said is unfair. People in the city can be just as stupid and ignorant. Thank you.

Here is the contentious clip:

Get a Free Ticket

Get a free ticket if you travelled on PT in April. Looks like Connex couldn't fudge their records on this one. Boy I hope that company that do wonders in Japan scoop the Melbourne contract off those useless Connex bastards. Maybe they can try getting rid of those ridiculous under cover Inspectors and put the money to decent use instead.

Workplace

I hate these. I'm not six. Don't feed me sloppy rhymes.

ABC News Article link.

To view on a PC/Mac please use this link

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/25/2579583.htm

To view on a mobile please use this link

http://m.abc.net.au/browse?page=11144&articleid=2579583&cat=Top Stories

Something's missing from the above article: superannuation. These tradie dudes turn some seriously comfortable coin. I even know someone who's done a masters on the cashed up bogan. They're becoming our ruling class majority. So why the fuck can't they save up in their super plans appropriately to set themselves up for when they fall apart? I thought it was blue collar conservatives who hated it when kids dole bludged? Why is supporting old broken people who didn't take advantage of their relative job security (working in the industry 20 years is pretty good these days) and comfy wage any different? The government isn't there to nanny us any more than it is there to sort out our personal finances. This is only bad for old dudes who didn't sort their shit out. I'd kill for the equivalent of 50 years in my chosen field. If the Rudd decides to reduce the effectiveness of super, then maybe these old tradies can kick up a stink.