qed’s blog

In what is clearly a sign of what to expect from the Rudd Labor Government, Peter Garrett has just announced an expansion of uranium mining for South Australia’s Beverly mine. Mr Garrett owes his fame to his extensive history as the lead singer for Midnight Oil, a band that was for many the touchstone for sentiments against nuclear power and other environmental issues. In 1984 he was the lead candidate for the Nuclear Disarmament Party in the Australian Senate as well as a time as president of the Australian Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace board member. In 2007 he voted against an expansion of the uranium mining at the party’s national conference saying “I have very great concerns about the current fragile safety regimes and the porous nature of safeguards because of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s inadequate monitoring of safety issues.”

How betrayed are we all be feeling right now?

The Right must really be popping the champas right now as the pseudo lefties all over the country fall over themselves in a mad rush to pursue some historically right wing agendas, Iemma and the power sell off in NSW, Gillard and Rudd with John Howard’s education “reforms” and now Pete Garrett and an expanding uranium industry. It begs the obvious question of whether or not there is anyone with moral conviction actually in government. As for the Pete, obviously Nicholson didn’t realise just how far Garrett would go.

So as with Gunns, Mr Peter Garrett obviously is only too happy to accept the opinion of a select bunch of experts as to the consequences to the ENVIRONMENT of development proposals. The personal and instinctive responses that people feel on these subjects, and presumably Pete did share these feelings once upon a time (in a galaxy far far away), are irrelevant to a “professional” politician. I don’t share his view that ” (on the uranium mine) the proposal won’t produce any adverse significant impacts on matters of national environment significance” and I am sure plenty of other people who voted for Garrett and Labor agree. Nor of course is that any guarantee that there won’t be any adverse impact on the environment. Exxon showed us just how responsible corporations can be with regard to the environment.

He’s a piece of shit!

As the casualty list grows following yesterday’s Fairfax announcement, you get the feeling that the rest of the local media heavy weights are gathering tips for their own “business improvement initiative” . It seems we live in an age of management speak, where cost saving is used to describe sacking people and going forward, a term of evasion that avoids acknowledging what’s happened before. And it also seems that the disease is spreading, so we now have promises of periods of consultation that are both extensive and one on one. The door is always open, unfortunately it is fast becoming the door you show people out.

One of the amazing things you find in media industries is just how many people work in managing the people who make the content that fills whatever media space you happen to choose. That not to say that management is unnecessary, but it is a fact that the lion share of numbers and wage growth in media employment over time is in management, the people who tell other people what to do and sometimes how to do it. Something doesn’t seem right if the CEO of Fairfax can send 500 odd people in search of other jobs and then collect a performance bonus at the end of the day.

At the ABC similar thoughts must be running through the mind of a former Fairfax man, Mark Scott. Mark doesn’t collect a performance bonus, but he is busy driving a reform agenda designed to streamline content production and improve utilisation of resources. It will also mean quite a few people lose their jobs (mostly operational staff), but you don’t hear management use terms like redundancies, it is all about going forward and gearing up for the new age of media. For the record here is Mark Scott in march 2008.

Now although I confess to a certain cynicism with regard to the idea of a 4th estate, there may well be a problem for the notion of democracy if we end up with next to no one actually generating the stories that were previously thought of as journalism. This might be sold as the price of progress, but the cost savings deserve to be challenged. It is most unlikely that media organisations in the throes of retrenching staff will be very interested in commissioning expensive in-depth journalism. Trivial lifestyle features or cooking shows are much easier and cheaper to make. This is a view illustrated in more depth by Nick Davies, a Gaurdian journalist and author of Flat Earth News on the 730 report. As we move to a new world of fractured news distribution via the internet, there are clear signs that those people who once were seen as champions of the press (journalists) are being replaced with content producers who have little time or interest in pursuing the traditions or ethics that guided their predecessors. Which suits who?

Footnote
Orthodoxy - if you think about the implications of this definition from Wikipedia, it seems obvious that we are indeed losing a radical and dissenting voice in this media revolution.
In general intellectual contexts, the terms “orthodox” and “orthodoxy” are commonly used in an unfavorable sense, similar to that associated with “dogma” and “dogmatic”. The implication is that orthodox beliefs are not rationally justified but are imposed by some overseeing body, such as the dominant group in an academic discipline. For example, the term orthodox economics is commonly used by critics to refer to the dominant approach to economics, which its supporters would more commonly call mainstream economics. In this sense, orthodox economics is commonly counterposed to radical or heterodox economics.

On the front page of certain newspapers you can reasonably expect to see a vitally important story like “Can Oz Idol Survive” or even more importantly how “We could have done more” to save a certain whale. Not so very remarkably Crikey reported yesterday that media mentions about the baby whale outnumbered the next biggest story (some dying river system) by almost 2 to 1. So it seems that as far as the mass media are concerned, a dying baby whale is much bigger news than the fate of the Murray Darling. Even the ABC thought so, yesterday’s midday news was slavish in its coverage (live cross etc etc) of the now departed whale and totally bereft of any mention of the ecological disaster unfolding out west. Strange really, when you think of which one has the potential to affect more lives. Oh well…

Not only do the Poms lead the world in surveillance, it seems they are pretty much up there in the stupid stakes as well. Now ordinarily people lose things and memory stick are, let’s face it, pretty easy to lose. But technology is around to secure data these days so surely its not to much to expect that a government that spends billions on spying on its own citizens would take the trouble to lock up its data.

If a government sees its role as chief spy then it needs to clean up its act. On the other hand, this highlights the problem of entrusting systems with sensitive information. As many IT security “experts” know, humans and physical security are much bigger problems than the technology. All of this is an excellent reason why any invasion of personal security be it by surveillance or by data aggregation should not proceed until it is demonstrated that the security of the data is guaranteed. Clearly the poms fail the test, one suspects that they are not alone.

Cubbie has been in the news for a while now, almost as long as there has been water issues in the Murray Darling basin…which is hardly surprising given the amount of water the property has locked up. If the Rudd government was really about looking after the National interest rather than certain Vested interests then the bloody minister for water resources would act. I think removing water rights from the states is the only place to start and cubbie booty should be returned to the environment for the same amount they paid for it in the first place, $3700 a year for an allocation of over 500,000 ML of water. It would be a brave act but what is more important, an inland water system or a rich farmer?

Megan Carberry recently wrote about the future for journalism graduates, she seems contemptuous of any doom and gloom scenarios advancing the line that “there will always be a great career for people who can gather accurate facts and present them fairly”.

Such assertions are of course easily made, I can just as easily say there will always be enough food for everyone. Of course by making such a prediction I can only be proven wrong by future events which means that today, here and now my claim is at least possibly true. Equally, by making such claims I am able to avoid discussions about what is happening here and now because I am not only making a future claim, but also because my claim incorporates the generalisation of “always”.

What I find particularly fascinating about this line of argument is that a, it is immediately focussed on the careers of “hopeful, idealistic student journalists” and at the same time quite dismissive of established journalist. She asserts that the imperative for any aspiring journalist is to “spend their energy figuring out how to make money (i.e. pay for the creation of) for the content news organizations are providing now”.

Now it’s not that difficult to understand what this all means for Megan. Learn how to gather facts and write a good story, then figure out how to package up your content so that you become not just a writer but also a bonus to the balance sheet. I guess once a few of those idealistic journalism graduates realise that making it sell is more important that anything else, then they will have to deal with their own idealism. One ideal they hopefully have avoided subscribing to is the notion of a free press or the so-called 4th estate.(1)

There is a rather deeper question that needs to be asked of Ms Carberry’s article. As long as it is a matter of careers, then sure a little heads up on the financial realities is probably ok. However if a young person has some sense of social responsibility they may well ask if a “career” working in a self serving politically motivated industry is really what journalism is about. Perhaps we would be better served if the masquerade of journalism and press freedom was described more for what it is rather than what it would like everyone to believe.

Ref (1): What Fourth Estate? By Mia Jarlov

This somewhat old cartoon from here

Featuring a rather godlike portrait, Time magazine allows Bill Gates free reign as he preaches to the world about Fixing Capitalism. Of course his article is focused on “making technological innovation work for the poor”, something that he claims corporations (presumably such as Microsoft) have a duty to perform. That such corporations also have other natural obligations such as maximizing share holder returns and reducing tax burdens is curiously left out of any real discussion by Mr Bill. And just in case you felt that Bill’s message was wide of the mark, his chief apologist also chimes in for a quick little one page essay.

He also makes the dubious claim that the world is getting better. Sure we have miracle drugs that cure this and that, we have wonderful information technology that brings the world’s knowledge to a desktop near you and we have unprecedented international travel that is both fast and relatively cheap. We also have arctic ice disappearing before our eyes and a sizeable proportion of the third world living below the poverty line. Add a few decades of industrial pollution and environmental exploitation to some of the guesswork currently doing the rounds of climate doomsayers and all of our cushy western successes could be reduced to historical relics. Billy’s claim about a better world is certainly conditional on which rose tints you have on your glasses.

All the more interesting is the hypocrisy of ex-chairman Gates championing something to help the world’s poor when his company is engaged in never ending pursuit of monopolising the world’s IT software industry. Free and open source software is in Gate’s world view something evil beyond description because its existence threatens completely to undermine his financial empire. However it isn’t the purpose of FOSS to destroy Microsoft, ultimately FOSS is about empowering the end user of software technology. It gives people the tools to control their own software destiny without having to pay a technology tax in the form of some proprietary operating system. That is why it is adopted by governments in some parts of the world (like South America) who understand that allowing Microsoft to take over is in effect, surrendering a part of their sovereignty.

Of course Bill isn’t going to start advocating free software, nor is he ever likely to have to survive on a dollar a day. His is a PR exercise. Making capitalism look good so it can continue to plunder whatever treasure are currently beyond its reach. All that is required by countries looking for more business investments (by people such a Microsoft???) is to “guarantee property rights, cut red tape and so on” He goes on to say that such “changes come slowly, in the meantime, we can’t wait.” It seems the role of government in developing countries is simply to create laws that let markets flourish and that economic growth will provide for everyone.

The capitalist system is fundamentally addicted to growth and growth is easiest in new markets. The message that Gates brings is dressed up in compassionate woolen clothes but the wolves’ sharp teeth are still salivating. Changing the system is the only answer.

Refs
1.Microsoft tax minimisation in Ireland
2.Michael Kinsley
3.Arctic Ice
4.Microsoft Tax