Posts Tagged ‘media’

Media, unions and political parties seen as Australia’s most corrupt institutions

by Sunanda Creagh

The media, trade unions and political parties are seen as Australia’s most corrupt institutions but fewer than 1% of people have had recent direct experience of graft, a new poll shows.

The survey, titled Perceptions of corruption and ethical conduct and produced by the Australian National University’s Research School of Social Sciences, surveyed 2020 people aged 18 years and over by phone between August and September this year, with a response rate of 43%. The results were adjusted to represent the national population.

“Satisfaction with democracy in Australia remains high by international standards, although it is lower in 2012 than at any time since 1998,” the study said, with most concerns related to the quality of government.

“There is a widespread perception that corruption in Australia has increased, with 43% taking this view and 41% seeing corruption as having remained the same,” the report said.

The police and armed forces were seen as most trustworthy while the media, trade unions and political parties were seen as most corrupt.

“The media one is interesting because it confirms a finding across 25 EU countries earlier this year about the pillars of integrity in our community – the media again came down near the bottom,” said study author, Professor Adam Graycar.

“We’ve seen a number of media stories recently globally — the Murdoch scandal in the UK. There have been issues with talk back radio and the cash for comment allegations. This poll was done before the latest talk back controversy. But it’s a global phenomenon and the implications are important because of the very important role the media has in transparency,” he said.

While less than 1% of respondents said they or a relative had experienced corruption directly, “where corruption exists, it does have a serious and deleterious effect on government, on the delivery of our services and infrastructure,” said Prof Graycar.

While political parties were seen as corrupt, more than half of respondents see ‘almost none’ or ‘a few’ federal politicians as being corrupt and public scepticism of politicians’ motives has been stable since the 1990s, the study said.

Professor Mark Findlay, Deputy Director of the University of Sydney’s Institute of Criminology, said public perceptions on crime “often have very little to do either with personal experience or factual knowledge.”

“It is particularly interesting that police corruption is no longer viewed in the serious end (when, in fact, instances of such corruption, particularly in some states such as Victoria, see no sign of abating),” he said.

“This may be explained by things as tangential as new series of ‘Underbelly’ in this viewing season, or in more concrete variables such as a desire to believe in our institutions of public security in a political climate of border protection and prevailing concerns about local and national security.”

The loss of confidence in politicians and trade unions is troubling but consistent with a worldwide disillusionment with conventional institutions of representative governance,“ Prof Findlay said.

“What is more troubling is the belief in media corruption when, in other circumstances, the media is relied upon to expose public sector corruption. Maybe all this could be put down to the recent political scandals and degenerating level of political debate, and the biased and irresponsible role of individual media personalities in fuelling this state of affairs.”

Overall, respondents were mostly satisfied with the direction Australia is headed in, with the economy, immigration and employment topping respondents list of most important issues and concern for the environment on the wane.

Respondents were only asked about perceptions of corruption in public institutions, not private businesses or corporations.

Darren Palmer, Associate Professor in Criminology at Deakin University said the poll showed anti-corruption agencies needed to boost their profile.

“One of the most interesting and also somewhat surprising results is that almost half of the respondents indicate they would report suspected corruption to police. This flies in the face of the major restructure of mechanisms for dealing with corruption, whereby all jurisdictions have invested heavily in various anti-corruption agencies, including those dealing with allegations or suspicion of police corruption,” he said.

“More needs to be done by these agencies to enhance public awareness and access to their complaints processes.”

Sunanda Creagh is the Editor of  The Conversation.   Additional reporting by Bella Counihan.

This article was first published by The Conversation at www.theconversation.edu.au

 

Let’s keep Alan Jones

by John August

Many people, via the internet and elsewhere, have been persuading advertisers previously on Alan Jones’ program to withdraw their advertising after Jones’ latest hurtful comments against Gillard. Is this censorship ? Some people want Jones “sacked”, which would be censorship, that’s not what I’m after. I don’t want to stop him broadcasting, but I do want to reduce the financial worth of his show.

I certainly don’t agree with harassing advertisers. If we’re to claim the moral high ground, we must politely point out how we feel to advertisers, and stop buying their products if they persist with Jones – but no more. Our actions should speak for themselves, with the market mediating their effect. Otherwise, we’re subject to the hypocritical attack that bullying is somehow worse when we do it – as compared to when Jones does it – when it’s OK. Not fair, but that’s how it is – the other side have never played fair.

It’s a boycott. Originally, Charles C Boycott, after ignoring calls to charge less rent – found himself shunned by mailmen, servants, shopkeepers and others. The most well known boycott is against Nestles, for formula milk in third world countries. But, even without a boycott, we’ve always been able to buy what we want – things like free-range eggs and dolphin safe tuna.

Previously, Marrickville council chose to boycott products from Israel. Forgetting how feasible it was, it’s every councils’ choice to make its own purchasing decisions, so long as there’s a council resolution. They weren’t trying to control anyone else’s consumption choices ( which would be illegal ) – only their own. There’s no issue. And, equally, just as we can buy what we want, suppliers can sell what they want. It’s their choice. Much as those “Plain milk, no soy, no exotics, just coffee” cafes may annoy us, they can offer what like. As long as they’re not discriminating against different customers, it’s their choice.

And – ultimately – we can choose not to buy products advertised by Jones.

However, if you’re choosing not to buy something because of what the supplier is doing, it’s a good idea to tell them. Otherwise, they might think sales dropped because the wind just happened to change direction, and have no idea they can do something to improve their sales. So – again – tell them politely about what you’re doing.

Yes, harassment is bad, but at the same time using it as an excuse to stick with Jones is pretty lame. You’re justified in supporting an obnoxious shockjock, but only because people are trying to stop you ? What if people weren’t trying to stop you ? What would you do then ? It’s also no excuse to say that you’re just buying advertising, and don’t “support” Alan Jones. You don’t just buy advertising – you “buy into” Jones.

That claim has been echoed by 2GB’s boss, Russel Tate, claiming it’s a private and commercial arrangement, with advertisers only wanting Jones’ audience without seeking to endorse Jones. I don’t think so. You buy into the whole deal. Jones is a powerful persona, able to attract a loyal audience. You don’t passively buy that strength, any more than you can passively make a deal with the Devil. Identification with Jones comes as an integral part of the package.

The issue is whether 2GB should be able to make money from Alan Jones without the advertisers being held accountable by consumers. Advertisers should always be free to advertise on Jones program. And we should not waste our freedom to make an organised response.

Jones is quite a piece of work. He’s been pissing off a lot of people for a long time. Yes a democracy should be a “plurality”. But it is strange how the well resourced with obnoxious platforms and positions who spread falsehoods are the very people who hide behind the defence of “freedom of speech”.

But Jones has done more than expressed opinions. He has expressed falsehoods and caused harm. Hiding behind “freedom of speech” is a bit rich. He’s already put his foot in his mouth numerous times, and has been embroiled in numerous court cases. There’s a strong pent-up feeling, and this is the straw that broke the camel’s back. People have been complaining about Jones for as long as we can all remember – to no effect. We’ve been ignored by the station – and so have been forced to do something else. If he previously shot himself in the foot, this time he’s managed to blow away his whole leg.

In a sense this isn’t news. We all knew how Jones really felt. I’m not surprised by what Jones said. Yawn. And maybe this drip-by-drip saturation coverage progression was even less news. But the media are like a pack of wolves. They’ve found a new scent, and after pursuing their quarry, have started to circle. They’re looking for weakness, like Jones did when the shoe was on the other foot. That’s what they do. No surprise there, either.

Sure, advertise with Jones and access his audience. You’ll get some sales – at the same time as non-listeners might stop buying. And perhaps that loss will exceed the gain that Jones so kindly gave you.

Over time, perhaps we’ll start to catalogue these choices – and we’ll be able to quantify this loss and report it to advertisers. We need to make a credible case, and show just how much the dollar value of their sales has declined. If they’re concerned about sales, if they’re concerned about the value of their brand, if they’re concerned about shareholder value – they’ll have to take it on board. All very polite. No harassment. Business is business, after all.

Is this censorship ? No, it’s the market at work.

We’re advertised at. Advertisers ramp up their organisation to persuade us to part with our money. At times, we’ll even buy stuff on a false apprehension. It’s rarely an issue. Now, we’re becoming organised in reaction to the situation, participating in the market, and are more aware of our consumption decisions. Isn’t that the whole idea ? Why would anyone complain?

Still, there’s a bit more to it. If you run a restaurant, it doesn’t matter how many people refuse to eat there, so long as you can get enough Jones supporters to fill it. Some small traders will be able embrace Jones – and the market will provide. Not a problem. Leave them to wallow in the swamp … they’re welcome to it.

However, if you’re running a larger business, these relative numbers count – we’re talking about total sales over a whole city, not just how many people will fill a restaurant. There’ll always be competitors – including smaller businesses who don’t support Jones – and you’ll be using Jones to guide your customers to them.

We all know how the total Jones listenership is in fact pretty low. Jones has a disproportionate influence compared to the number of people who actually listen. Yes, yes. The Jones phenomenon. We know that.

At some point there will be a crossover, and Jones will be denied advertising from businesses greater than a particular size. If anyone wants to have a go at calculating it, let me know what it is. But, for the moment, all we need to know is that there is such a size. So, rather than running a radio “show”, the Jones’ program will become what will be effectively a private podcast, supported by advertisers who are members of his tribe. It might as well be the “podcast listeners” – and it just happens to be broadcast on AM radio rather than actually be a podcast.

It will, nevertheless, be quite an improvement. Jones and his supporters, collected together in a circle, squinting, looking at the outside world, paranoid, isolated and worried. The Jones fishbowl, only now it will be so much more obvious. And rather less profitable, too.

Actually, I never would have had a problem with Alan Jones running a private podcast for those who want to listen. Or a paper or email newsletter. No censorship, remember ?

I find it easy to believe that, with a little organisation, we can make the number of people choosing not to buy because of Jones exceed those who would have because of him – at least, for the larger firms. Now, and sustainably into the future. I dearly hope so. We’ll have to wait and see. Certainly, I’ll continue to do my bit.

Along the way many firms will have publicly distanced themselves from him. A few businesses will persist as die-hard supporters, but that’s no issue.

The market at work. Delivering better outcomes for us all. Let us all kneel before the altar of capitalism. Lovely. Facilitated by the market, our individual wills influence production decisions in the world around us, making it a better place for us all. It’s so nice when things work.

Let’s hope the market works properly in this case … Why would we expect otherwise ?

The Australian and the Prime Minister

by John Passant

The News Ltd paper The Australian has been on a vendetta against Labor and Julia Gillard for some time now. There is nothing surprising in this.

Rupert Murdoch uses his newspapers to try and influence the outcome of government decisions and election results and, he hopes, to suit his business interests. He has done so since time immemorial.

He also is an astute capitalist who knows his major market-  the US – is built on the bones of conquered and subjugated peoples around the globe.

Hence Murdoch is an avid supporter of American imperialism even when it may not appear his direct material interests are involved. So it was that 174 of his 175 media outlets supported the invasion of Iraq.

But sometimes the hubris of unelected power overreaches the mark.

Read more ...

The Media Inquiry we need

by Bob Carr

 

We all grumble about the media. The question is Lenin’s question: what is to be done? An inquiry could collect every grievance that everyone has ever had with their local radio stations and the mistakes in the deaths’ notices. It can go from one end of the country to the other and hear submissions in Town Halls. It can persuade itself that a lot of reporting and editing is bad, that ownership is concentrated, that there is all sorts of bias. But you can hear that confirmed on Media Watch every week. The question is: what to do?

Read more ...

The debasement of public debate

by Dr Ken Macnab

John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty (1859) that it was ‘imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve’. Moreover, they should be free to act upon these opinions, subject only to the limitation that they do no harm to others. Implicit in Mill’s emphasis on freedom of opinion was the necessity for civil public debate in pursuit of the truth, a calm and systematic contest which acted as a check on power and authority.

In the 1820s the English press came to be conceived as ‘the fourth estate’, and credited with an important role as a ‘check’ on the various arms of government. A similarly crucial role is given to freedom of speech and the press in the First Amendment to the American Constitution (1791) and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

The modern media often claims the same role as facilitator of constructive public participation in democratic politics and society. However, the media largely fails to provide either the full information or informed commentary necessary for it to be part of genuine public debate and a check on adversarial polemic. Instead, it is mostly servile and partisan. When media moguls like Rupert Murdoch set out to make more money by blatantly serving narrow political interests through media such as the alleged ‘world’s greatest newspaper 1843-2011′ (News of the World) and the ‘fair and balanced’ (Fox News), role of the ‘fourth estate’ becomes cynically manipulated and exploited façades. Moreover, and equally insidious in its effect on the quality of public debate, the tone and language of both much media communication and public response has become aggressive, personal and abusive.

Read more ...

Connect now

Subscribe

Subscribe to LAWCRIMEPOLITICS.COM

Email address:

Search

Progressing the Social Democratic Agenda