Oct/092
Moving on…
The end of semester means this blog is hopping to a new server. You can find a new post at:
or
Hope to see you over there!
Oct/090
10th Birthday Post
Blue Shark Cake by Gertie&Gilbert
This blog has been going for an incredible 10 weeks now, which is as good an excuse as any to turn a teary eye back to the highlights.
* cue wibbly-wobbly special effects *
Ah, what a different place the world was 10 weeks ago. That Jackson bloke was still alive, American had no public option and nobody knew that 81 per cent of Australians had no idea why "blackface" might be considered offensive.* Simpler, happy times.
Out of all the past nine posts, Sweary Kev and Hey Hey, It's Bigotry have received the most loving - according to Sitemeter, at least. I'm quite happy about that, as they're probably my favourite too. Biogtry comes in at second place, mainly because I think I could have spent the last week constantly updating that. (Check out The Punch's running commentary and this piece in The Australian.) And there's much more to be said. And, really, if you still think it wasn't offending anyone, then, you know, read more widely. Even Fox News had a go at us. Fox. News.
(I'm not saying anyone meant the skit to be racist, by the way. You'd have to working hard to suggest there was intent. But you'd have to looking pretty hard in the other direction to think no-one would take it as such.)
But that's enough about me. Who are you, my loyal readers? Well, clearly you're people of exquisite taste and slightly less than half or you are based in Australia, which isn't that surprising.
Let's look at some figures here:
Visits
Total .......................... 217
Average per Day ................. 13
Average Visit Length .......... 6:19
This Week ....................... 91
Page Views
Total .......................... 426
Average per Day ................. 28
Average per Visit .............. 2.2
This Week ...................... 198
13 a day might not look that impressive but, considering the blog's only been running 10 weeks, isn't full of pretty pictures of ladies (clothed or unclothed) and - crucially - is only being updated once a week, I think it's a fair start. The average visit length is heartening, as it means people are hanging around to read something. Page views suggest most visitors read more than one page. The actual total doesn't mean much as I only set the sitemeter up three weeks ago. At the moment I'm looking at 90-100 visits a week.
How do I plan to bump up these numbers? Well, I'll post more often for one thing. Over the next few weeks, we'll be looking at shorter posts, more often. That's the plan, anyway.
And there I go, talking about myself again.
Let's talk more about you:
Visitors by location
At least half of the recent 20 visitors are from the US, which I think has been helped by coverage of US political issues, including the recent Hey Hey embarrassment. That's a trend that's likely to continue into the future because, well, it's the sort of thing that interests me. I was going to write about the seemingly inevitable election of David Cameron this week, so it would have been interesting to see if more UK visitors had stopped by.
Last week, I did have a sudden surge of interest from Egypt, but I'm not sure I can explain why that might have been the case.
I was big in Cairo, briefly
But where are you all coming from? Well, it's hard to tell as Sitemeter refuses to cough up referrals. What I can say is that this week, for the first time, more of you are arriving on the front page than at a specific post. There's a couple of reasons why this might be the case. The first is that the blog has a new domain:
Bookmark it now! You'll need to remember this as the blog will soon be moving to a new home. I originally set the blog up as part of my journalism course, using hosting based at university. Now the course is at an end, I'll be moving on. (And also looking for work, by the way...)
Talk of bookmarks brings me on to my second point. More of you may be arriving at the front page because you've started to drop by via a saved link. In which case, thanks! Take a gold star.
That's about all I can tell you about yourselves, for now. If I've missed anything, or we haven't been introduced, say hello in the comments below. You'll be in good company.
I'll continue to push the blog over the coming weeks, using Facebook and Twitter, which have both provided something of a boost to the ratings over the last couple of weeks. But, most importantly, I can guarantee you the usual, slightly sarcastic analysis in weeks to come. I hope you'll continue to drop by!
I now return you to the present. Mind how you go.
* more wibbly-wobbly special effects *
* One of these things hasn't happened.
Oct/096
Hey Hey, it’s Bigotry!
Years ago, I saw a wonderfully obscene stand up performance by Sean Hughes who, having been exposed to Daryl Somers, wondered if the plaudit "All-round-entertainer" was Australian slang for "c*nt".
Certainly, in the actually-rather-lovely light of Thursday morning, Somers and his entourage were all looking like a bunch of complete all-round-entertainers.
If ever we need a warning of the perils of nostalgia, then the creaky resurrection of 80s variety show Hey Hey, it's Saturday will be there as a steaming beacon. It's appropriate that our lust for simpler times should bring with it a clear reminder of the sort of bigotry that we prefer to forget. Both Hey Hey and its casual racism belong in the past. Hopefully, after last night, they will stay there.
The controversy around last night's "Jackson Jive" performance did achieve something significant, however. It actually managed to interest me in Hey Hey, It's Saturday. I vaguely remember the show as being the impossibly long and boring thing that stopped Channel 9 showing a film on Saturday evenings. And, as Marieke Hardy said in today's Green Guide, it's comforting to see it's just as shit as I remember.
The reaction from the media overseas has been suitably damning. The reaction from the media here has, frankly, been slightly embarrassing. News.com.au led the way by asking the public whether they felt the incident was racist.
Aside from the blacked-up morons, additional highlights for me included:
- the Kamahl cartoon
- the "allriiight" from whoever the fuck it is who laughs in that sinister way in the background
- Somers summing up by saying "there's a lot of colour on this show." No, really.
As of this evening, 69 per cent of 30,000 Australians didn't think any of that was racist. To me, this is more damning than the act itself. Sure, there's a certain amount of the cultural cringe in my embarrassment but, on this occasion, we don't need to worry that people from "more sophisticated" parts of the world might look down on us. They are looking down on us.
The general online reaction from defiant Australians can be neatly summed up by the following comment from an article on the Telegraph:
Just because Australia isn't as brow beaten by the poltically correct brigades of the world. Doesn't mean we're racist.
In other words, youse guys need to lighten up and learn how to take a joke.
"Hey Hey it’s Racism Outrage" by contactink
Now, I like a joke, as you may have noticed. My sense of humour also leans slightly to the black side (no pun intended). You may have noticed that too. Here are some reasons I didn't get this one:
- The lack of irony.
Actually, that's pretty much reason enough. Had the joke been about a group of unreconstructed whiteys who didn't realise it wasn't appropriate to dress up in blackface, I might have laughed.
A friend asked today if it would have been offensive to women had these men dressed up as women. I would argue in some cases it might have been, but this is to say nothing of the aped imagery particular to the Black and White minstrels. Chris Lilley has recently shown it's possible to skate the thin ice of racial parody - doubtless John Safran's forthcoming show will do the same - but to unironically reference a clumsy racial parody that, in the UK, was seen as racist as early as 1967 shows a terrifying lack of self-awareness. And, whether we like it or not, reflects badly on the culture that allowed it to go to air.
In this, Somer's half-hearted apology at the end of the show missed the point. Apologising for offending Connick Jr is like saying to your partner "I'm sorry you feel upset whenever I have sex with your friends, poor you". Neither is it sufficient to say "I guess in your part of the world that might have been inappropriate". Come off it, Australia might be backward, but we're not that backward.
Possibly the strangest defence comes from the skit's frontman. He said it was "ironic" people should accuse him of racism, since he's of Indian descent. Quite honestly, I'm not sure what he means. Does he mean that only white people can be racist? Or does he mean it's ironic that an Indian man could be accused of being racist when everyone knows Australians hate Indians?
I worry it might be the latter.
* * *
ps. My esteemed, rival blogger Hari Raj has also blogged on the issue. Since he agrees with most of my points, I highly recommend it. Also, it's beautifully written.
Sep/093
It used to be about the music: designs for life
Some geezer.
"His curdled incredulity was consistent with [a] tone toward all culture tainted by mass popularity, with the old indie habit of retreating behind concentrically embedded moats of sarcasm."
It's possible I have certain snobbery issues. (Honestly, you're nodding like it's a bad thing...)
In the towers of my snobbery, the worst department has always been the musical floor. Working ten years in various record stores didn't help, but even before then I tended to abort conversations when someone admitted to liking the M People. Even now it hurts to type that name. In truth, I'm still very rarely close friends with anyone who doesn't have commendable (if not identical) tastes.
For me, bands and even genres used to be exclusive gangs, identifiable by a certain t-shirt or haircut. You loved those gangs for your comrades as much as you did for the outcasts. There were two people in my high school who weren't obsessed by Metallica but, to us, the other 78 kids in my year were the outcasts. No, seriously, they were the losers. (That's what I tell my pillow when waking at 3am in a cold sweat.)
Not for us the delights of commercial radio. Even Triple J quickly palled. No, we happy few (actually, we were striving to be melancholic loners) were importing NME, Q Magazine, Uncut and Rolling Stone to check our hair was facing in the right direction.
A decade on, I wish I could say everything had changed. Or anything, come to that.
So it was when I came to think about the news sites I pay the most attention to, I ignored The Age, ABC News, The Guardian, even BBC News.
Instead, I came here:
NME front page (some of it, at least)
Now, really, I'm too old to be reading British indie pop/rock site NME.com - but that doesn't stop me. I remember when it used to leave you with smudged fingers and a faint nausea from ink fumes. I also remember the outrage when the newspaper went tabloid and swapped newsprint for gloss.
The current site is very much following this glossy trend, having abandoned newspaper-esque columns for colourful boxes that tend to make its front page a little disorientating. I know teenagers love to fill their MySpace pages with as many flashing graphics and scrolling things as possible (I don't lurk, honestly), so perhaps they feel more at home here.
The main issue is the finger strain from scrolling down to the bottom of the page. While the most recent news is located neatly above the fold, a cornucopia of additional features is bubbling beneath. Features, reviews, concert tickets, charts, more features, more reviews, more charts. There's so much to see that I can't be bothered reading everything to decide where I want to go.
While the range of material available is impressive, I feel these could be located more tidily. The right hand column, in which the main news items and features are again spruiked, largely feels a waste of space. I understand it's intended to follow you through - as well as being a defacto front page for those googling their favourite artists - but I'd rather something simpler and few breadcrumbs up top, letting me know where I am on the site.
These criticisms can partly be explained as I probably fall more easily into the demographic of Pitchfork.com - the American equivalent for fans of chin-stroking indie.
Pitchfork front page
(You may notice that the top news stories are largely identical. Instead of a tangential slide into the uniformity of critical opinion, let me direct you to a post elsewhere that touches on the subject. Failing that, you could look at an article I wrote on this very topic for Overland journal.)
Despite similar content, Pitchfork's front page is far cleaner and, therefore, more enticing. Sections are confined in neat little boxes, almost entirely above the fold, allowing the visitor to flick through features, galleries and headlines without scrolling anywhere. The eye can quickly hop from section to section before making a decision in which direction to chase content. Drop down boxes from the menu bar atop the page offer further guidance.
Pitchfork: the columns change but the feel stays the same
Moving further into the site, breadcrumbs appear beneath the top menu, reminding you exactly where you are. The columns left and right change, offering relevant lists and content, and the logo offers a quick escape to the front page should the self-congratulatory nature of some of their reviews distress you. (And distress you they ultimately will.)
The site is a pleasure to navigate and its suggestions of related content, rather than being cluttered or overwhelming, are genuinely appreciated. It feels far more consistent in its construction, even though the NME sticks rigidly to a set number of columns. All of this helps create a comfortable space in which you actually want to spend time.
Comforts of design aside, the reason I enjoy Pitchfork so much is that it makes me feel better as a human being. As snobbish as I may be, I can never match the site's levels of determination to detest the thing they love as soon as other people discover it. I understand the impulse to sink a flag and swear you were into the next big thing before they had even formed, but no longer find mass love reason to switch off. I like it when my friends and loves become successful.
The quote atop this post isn't actually about me after all - it comes instead from a critique of Pitchfork founder Ryan Shreiber. You can find it here, in another article questioning Pitchfork's approach to their beloved bands. I also toyed with "a comic villain hybrid of hipster and severely autistic child" taken from here.
And if that wasn't enough, here's a review generally acknowledged as the worst Pitchfork ever published. (It's since been deleted from their site.) Their best review? Probably their take on Jet's second album. Be warned, it's not for those who don't like their monkey porn. Seriously.
Enjoy!
Sep/095
Sweary Kev
Kevin Rude? courtesy of abc.net.au
After eleven years of potato-headed rule, it's comforting to know that Australia finally has a good Aussie bloke as PM. At least, that's the message being put out - however subliminally - by the Rudd party. Kev might look like a church-going accountant, but he's as red-blooded an Aussie as Peter Russell-Clarke. (More of him later.)
How do we know our Kev's a good 'un? Because he's more than happy to tell those Labor party f**kers to f**k off if they're not f**king doing what he f**king wants them to. How do we know this? Well, Labor told us. Glenn Milne of News Ltd broke the story, revealing "hardened" party staffers were left "shocked" by the outburst. Rudd might "cultivate" an image of cool-headedness, Milne reminded us, but sometimes he does like a bit of a strop.
According to sources present, Mr Rudd said: "I don't care what you f---ers think!"
He then went on, singling out Senator David Feeney declaring, "You can get f---ed", before asking, "Don't you f---ing understand?"
- Sunday Herald Sun, 20 September 2009.
If Milne is expecting the Australian populace to share his shock at this outrage, he may be disappointed. Rudd himself was unapologetic, using the outburst as an example of his "robust" commitment to tackling important issues. A shame then the issue in question was how much the government was spending on printing. Still, a few f-bombs are unlikely to hurt the PM's standing any more than a quick visit to a strip club or describing the financial crisis as a “shitstorm.”
Milne was quick to jump on the strip club incident as damaging to Rudd’s electoral chances but, again, had misread the national character. Rudd may have seemed red-faced, but a bit of nocturnal naughtiness gave his bland character some appealing coarse edges. Here was a fun-loving bloke who liked the occasional drink and occasionally woke up with one or two things to regret. Who couldn’t identify with that?
Of course, there remains a whiff of antiseptic to these sweary shenanigans. Listen to Rudd say “shitstorm” and you wonder if that hesitation isn’t him checking his foul tongue but instead checking he remembered to swear. Similarly, this week’s f**king leaks seem more deliberate than accidental. Next week we’ll probably hear that Rudd scribbles “Anarchy” symbols across the top of Parliament House notepaper. And, once, he left a dirty coffee cup in the sink, instead of putting it in the dishwasher. The Rebel.
Still, Rude Rudd can go too far. Not six months ago, the reported tongue-lashing of an air stewardess did deliver a slight wobble to his standing and spark accusations that our blokey PM was "Un-Australian". On the face of it, here was a man using a position of authority to dominate his inferiors - not very egalitarian, really. So why don't we care that he branded a whole swathe of his staff f**kers?
Susie O'Brien, in a rather tedious opinion piece, might have (somewhat) inadvertently put her finger on the problem. Imagine if Kev had been talking to Therese like that, she suggested, would we still be so unmoved? And there we have it: it's just not Aussie to swear at a sheila. They're delicate flowers, those chicks.
As it is, Rudd soon might not need to make an effort at playing the rude boy. A new Greenpeace campaign seeks to make his own name a dirty word with its new Dirty Kev campaign, warning the PM to clean up his act when it comes to coal.
Picture from dirtykev.org/blog
Once again though, Rudd probably has a good read on the Australian populace. He knows that the majority of Australians want action on climate change, we just don't care what the action is. In fact, a newspoll this week suggested most Australians would rather Rudd made whatever changes are necessary to get his Emissions Trading Scheme through the senate, than for us to have to go to the polls again. And fair enough, elections do put a hole in your Saturday. Besides, didn't we used to like it when it didn't rain? Harden the f**k up, greenies.
For a masterclass in Australian swearing, let me leave you in the crude but capable hands of Peter (G'day) Russell (G'day) Claaarke. (Warning: might seriously offend sheilas.)
Peter Russell-Clarke swears. A lot. (YouTube)
Sep/093
Obama the Racist
Sean Hannity asserts Barack Obama is a racist
Real Americans™ - as Palin would have it - are fighting for their lives. Soon these working class white folks, who proudly eschew the biased liberal media in favour of Fox pundits like Hannity, will be sent off to face government death boards who will prescribe mandatory euthanasia. Or something. Even if they're not, it's socialism gone mad, just like with them Nazis. Or, worse, like Europe today.
The venom with which factions of the American public have resisted Obama's promise of "free universal health care" (legal notice: not actually on offer) and its attendant death camps (ditto), may seem surprising to those of us who live in countries where governments still subsidise medical treatment. But are anti-Obamacare protests masking prejudices that have been bubbling under since Obama's election last November?
According to Ex-Pres Jimmy Carter, it's all about race. Plenty of folks (Real Americans™ prefer to be called folks, not "people") from the south still have reservations about the ability of a black man to run their country. Of course, the liberal scum media have been jumping up and down with excitement over the claim. The demented socialists at the BBC have been using it as their lead item for twenty-four hours straight. After months in which America seemed to have resigned itself to having a black president, those deeply-held prejudices have bubbled to the surface.
This might just be the self-satisfied carping of European liberals, however, as there has been comparatively little coverage of Carter's comments in the US. As of today, neither CNN or the New York Times feature the story on their front pages. Fox News does, but at least their coverage is balanced and unbiased - bagging Carter for playing the 'risky race card'.
Carter's comments follow last week's interjection by Republican Joe Wilson during Obama's health care speech. As Obama was promising illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from health care changes, Wilson yelled out "You Lie", which was seen as a serious breach of decorum. A New *spit* York *spit* Times *spit* opinion piece by Maureen Dowd, reprinted locally by Fairfax, claimed what Wilson really meant was "You lie, boy!" and that his inability to control his outburst reflected a disbelief that "one of them" could really be President. Bush never had to deal this sort of thing. Well, not in Congress, at least.
George Bush shoe attack
Dowd's comments have been embraced by the liberal media, just as Wilson's outburst has been plastered on placards and bumper stickers all across the States by Real Americans™. "Obama liar!" has become a popular chant for anti-Obamacare protestors, even as the Right express outrage at Democrats playing the race card.
Certainly, the Right would never do such a thing. Well, except for Glen Beck and Sean Hannity (see above), obviously. But then Obama did go out of his way to appoint a "Latino" Judge, when there were plenty of decent, sensibly-aged white men who could have done the job without running the risk of fiery, Hispanic outbursts. And he did suggest white police were acting stupidly by arresting a black professor. I mean, it's getting so you can't arrest a black man anymore, just to be on the safe side.
On the other hand, he did weigh in with some "off the record" comments in which he branded Kanye West a "jackass" for stage-crashing poor Taylor Swift in her moment of glory. But there's no saying he didn't stick up for the white girl just to throw us all off the scent.
So, is Obama a black supremacist, waiting to revenge his people on their former slave masters? Well, no-one's asked him, but the White House was quick to deny that Joe Wilson was being a racist. If it takes one to spot one, then Obama's failure to finger Wilson can only count in his favour.
Still, a recent photoshoot might bring us closer to the true state of affairs.
Image courtesy of Gawker.com
Yes. Obama is a Jedi Supremacist. And we know all about their racist struggles against "the Dark Side" - finally exposed to be run by two sensibly-aged white men. One of whom, when he took his helmet off, did look a bit like John McCain. Coincidence? I think not.
You can tell this is true because the liberal media has been supressing the story. It took courageous conservative blog Conservative Brawler to bring the issue to our attention some months ago. Video evidence follows.
Obama Jedi Mind Trick (Not actually as funny as it wants to be)
-
Was Wilson's outburst racist?
-
Is Obama a racist or, indeed, a Jedi?
-
Why do only Fox News tell it like it is?
Sep/095
When you just can’t care enough
Image taken from steveschafer
I don't have any children.
As a result, I have no interest in children. In fact, their appeal is largely lost on me. To be honest, most of them look the same, until they start to dress themselves, at least. And they smell. Honestly. Try going to a midday cinema session during the school holidays if you don't believe me.
Generally, I prefer to forget that children exist. I do have friends with children, which is unfortunate, but they're generally good enough not to bring them to the pub. It's hardly an original observation that parents tend to narrow their world view until their offspring obscure all (there's probably a good evolutionary reason for it), but it makes for poor conversation. I mean, I don't follow the football, so if that's all someone wants to talk about, I'll go sit somewhere else.
Sadly, we are expected to care.
Even more sadly, social networking allows parents to expect us to care all the time. About everything from the filling of a nappy to how little sleep they managed the previous night. I'm wary about accepting friend requests from old school friends, as there is the very good possibility that they hope to use Facebook to tell as many people as possible about their incontinent offspring. There are some things you don't want to be reading over your cornflakes.
I've discussed this matter with my childless friends and we've all come to the same conclusion - some parents need to be trimmed from your newsfeed. There are countless groups on the wonder of children, yet, curiously, there are no groups (that I could easily find) about how sick people are of hearing about other people's babies.
Here then is a genuine social taboo: it's not acceptable to tell your friends that babies bore you. Why? It can't simply be out of fear of causing offence. If that was the case, a lot of slow walking people wouldn't be worrying so many people out there are wanting to punch them in the back of the head.
Instead, the discomfort in badmouthing children highlights the liminal space between public and private that social networking occupies. The more we engage with sites like Facebook, the more difficult it is to function with integrity. The more public we become, the less private we can - or should - be. The most interesting interactions and conversations are forced offline, where no-one is listening. On the flipside, sites like Facebook might be a more pleasurable environment if people understood its public nature. Not everyone will want to see graphic photos of the birth of your child. (What next, a video of the conception?) Seriously, half-chewed cornflakes can be really hard to fish out from your keyboard.
I enjoy hearing people reflect on the minutiae of their days. I like reading people reflecting on issues, however trivial. I find most things interesting. Even those quizzes that tell your friends which animal you would be if, you know, you were an animal.
But I deserve the right to complain when someone keeps banging on and on in my virtual ear. Like if someone's going on and on about how much they hate kids.
Of course, I also reserve the right to non-hypocritically reverse my position in a few years time when I have kids of my own. But you'll love them. And find them endlessly amusing. Oh look, vomit. How sweet.
For what it's worth, I also hate happy people.
And people who post updates about Jesus.
Currently, I have three friends on Facebook. (One of them is my mum.)
Aug/090
You Know It, I’m Bad
A clip from Martin Bashir's controversial documentary "Living with Michael Jackson"
I've never liked Michael Jackson.
There, I've said it.
Now, I've worked as a music writer (still do, when I have time), spent 10 years working in record stores and have generally been the sort of sad music obsessive who thinks the book/film "High Fidelity" is a portrait of a sensible, well-adjusted young man, if not actually an instructional text.
But I remember my childhood disappointment whenever I realised the clip Rage were playing was "Bad", rather than Weird Al Yankovic's far more entertaining "Fat". My preferences in this matter remain mostly unchanged. I think I was briefly interested in the spectacle of the "Thriller" clip but the actual song left no traces. In that way, it worked as a preview of the last 20 years of so of Jackson's life, when the spectacle came to far exceed the content.
Of course, I'm not saying that I was untouched by his death. There was the usual compassion at the death of a fellow human being, but I was quickly alienated by the incessant blanket coverage. Sadly, with the announcement of a homicide ruling, the saga's legs are looking all too strong.
Media coverage of grief, in the wake of a public icon's demise, seems an increasingly blind and brutal beast. The news attempts to reflect public opinion and then magnifies it exponentially until there is only one opinion to be had. Perhaps understandably, it's not terribly fashionable right now to raise the topic of Jackson's alleged paedophilia, his bizarre family arrangements or his slow, plasticised transformation into a skinny Elizabeth Taylor (via Diana Ross).
Death, particularly when the media is watching, makes saints of us all. Witness Jade Goody's transformation from chav-scum pariah to working class martyr. It took an Australian princess to bump Princess Diana off the cover of every single copy of Woman's Weekly and New Idea, but that won't stop her eventual canonisation when we discover her offspring were conceived immaculately. (One of them, certainly, seems not to have required her to sleep with Charles.)
Di's death transformed news coverage of the death of an icon. At the time, the news seemed surprised at the strength of feeling from the public, but lessons were learned. The readiness for mass grief is now permanently in the wings, with coverage tending to focus on how we all feel about the loss, to the point that it becomes hard to believe that any of us are carrying on with our tiny lives.
But what if our own grief isn't up to scratch?
It can be hard, in these times, to be a cold-hearted bastard. To remain unmoved by the endless tributes and emotional outpourings. Suddenly, we non-be-grievers are aliens to our fellow men and highlighted as such by each new bulletin.
Of course, being cold-hearted bastards, we may not care. But maybe we should. Because, really, what's all this grief and tribute-making doing on the news? Was Jackson's death really the most important news items for that many days running?
The BBC reportedly received a vast number of complaints for its incessant coverage, but defended its decison on the grounds that it rated well and "undoubtedly a great many of you were extremely interested."
The story was popular, certainly, but can an entertainment story really warrant such coverage to the exclusion of other ongoing stories?
When you're chasing the interests of the public, rather than protecting their interests, the answer is probably yes. The charts on the BBC News site (and many like it) are sorted by "Most Read", "Most Emailed" and "Most Watched" but, curiously, not "Most Important." Judging importance might be a subjective decision, but it's still one that might be better made by an informed professional. Here's the current top 5 "Most Shared" stories at the Beeb.
- Apple denies 'exploding' iPhones
- Fujitsu warned of pension strikes
- Witchcraft in West Africa
- 'Robot girls' clue to Dugard case
- Curbs on nuclear scientist lifted
It's hard not to think that chasing news in order to satisfy the clickings of the great unwashed makes a tendency to sensationalism and spectacle somewhat inevitable.
On the other hand, maybe I'm being elitist and contrary. Probably. Maybe Jackson's cultural status earned him a couple of weeks at the front of every bulletin.
But, still, wouldn't it be more helpful to see a chart of "Least Read" stories, instead of an endless feedback loop reminding us what we're supposed to be interested in?
Aug/090
At least we’re not French.
Indian students protest in Flinders Street. Photo by Will Ockenden.
I was actually going to write about bogans this week, in the wake of Melbourne mayor Robert Doyle suggesting we essentially build a bogan proof fence, keeping undesirables from the Western Suburbs from besmirching our city streets. There are so many issues connected with Doyle's apparent snobbery - class, crime, cash and even, I suspect, ethnicity - that I could easily ramble on the topic. But I won't.
Well, just a little.
Researching the bogan issue for a feature, I stumbled across www.bogan.com.au. (Never again will I struggle to explain the concept of bogan to a foreigner, thanks to their handy 'Bogan of the Week' gallery and concise history of the term.) Of uncomfortable interest was a forum thread complaining that the analogous Sydney term 'Westie' had been co-opted by 'the Wogs, Fobs (sic) or the Refuges (fully sic)'. Another proud Australian tradition eroded, allegedly, by our multicultural society.
These are testing times, it seems, for our national identity. In the wake of recent protests by Indian students, Australia is having to defend itself against accusations of racism and comments such as those above provide unfortunate evidence for the prosecution.
An oak tree, not in Punjab Place. By slimmer jimmer.
Then, today, worse was to come. Punjab Place, a small cul-de-sac in the Queensland suburb of Logan, is to be renamed 'Oak Tree Place' following complaints from local retirement home residents. According to news.com.au, resident Ron Edmonds denied any racist intent, claiming the new name was "just a nicer name."
However, the developer responsible, born in the Punjab, has said he believes it to be "clear cut racism" and the president of an Indian association agrees.
Instead, the story seems to highlight which cultural icons we continue to privilege. There's not an Oak Tree in sight on the street in question, so the name is hardly more fitting, aside from the Anglophilic imagery it conjures up.
English tree good. Indian place name "not so pretty".
Of course, it's a complete non-story, but it chimes with ongoing tensions between the Indian community and, well, whoever it is being racist towards them. Is it all of us?
The story, slight as it is, reminded me of comments from 4us, a set of four films made by refugee children settled in Melbourne. One of the films, 'In My Shoes', sees a group of Sudanese and Somali teenagers talking about their experiences encountering prejudice in Australian society. It's confronting stuff.
The comment that stayed with me was that Australia, as the kids saw it, wasn't really a racist place. But it was intolerant of different religions - in their case, Islam.
In other words, Australians don't mind where you come from, but struggle to accept that other cultural backgrounds may come to play a role in the public sphere.
I don't know how true that is, but felt challenged by this insight.
Which leads me to another fluffy story covered by a few news outlets today - the Paris Burqini Ban.
Both the Age and news.com.au have latched on to this story, allowing themselves a hint of outrage at these intolerant Frenchies banning a great Australian invention. Whether the ban or the complaint from the banned burqini wearer are politically motivated is impossible to say, but it follows controversy following a blanket ban on religious wear in state schools.
An Australian Icon revised. Photo by brimfulofsasha
Comments on the news.com.au article predictably range from 'they should go home' to 'people should be free to wear what they want'. While many were amusing and many others depressing, one that seemed relevant to this post was:
It would be very sad if a place like France was to loose it's cultural identity. For Australia it's not so bad, we don't really have a cultural identity. So I can accept it. But France is renowned for it. Posted by: Goosens of Hervey Bay
Goosens isn't the first to suggest it, but do we really lack a cultural identity? If so, why do we react uncomfortably when the influence of other cultures enters the public sphere? Is "bogan" our sole contribution to global culture?
Aug/092
Who asked you?
Image by theparadigmshifter
- BBC NEWS, Have Your Say
I always wince at sweeping statements about the internet in terms of what it is right now; what it does right now; its social significance right now etcetera etcetera, but that won't stop me having a go.
What the internet is, right now, from where I'm typing, is chatter. People endlessly talking and sharing their opinions, regardless of whether anyone asked them. And, yes, that kettle is looking particularly black, isn't it?
Of course, we're all being asked, all the time, wherever our browsing takes us.
Facebook denizens are constantly filling out the kind of surveys we used to cross streets to avoid. My favourite beverages? Sure, I'll spend five minutes selecting those. (Tea, Red Wine, Ale, Soda Water, Cider, since you're wondering.) Which Doctor Who am I? (Tom Baker; and no, I didn't cheat.)
Once upon a time, you wouldn't have known the significance of these items. (Facebook)
The news and you
News sites are increasingly in on the game, rarely finishing an article without inviting discussion from anyone who has - quite unexpectedly - found themselves in possession of an opinion. In some ways, this is a natural extension of a decades-long shift from the news telling us what has happened to telling us what they've learned about how we feel about what has happened.
But what are news sites to do with the tsunami of knowledge-lite opinion likely to result from an invitation to comment? In a litigious age with all manner of interest groups ready with their defamation writs, is it safe to vent the village idiot's voice?
Australian news site newmatilda.com recently found themselves having to remove the option to comment on certain stories following complaints of anti-semitism from the Australian Defamation Commission.
According to newmatilda.com editor, Marni Cordell:
Australian Jewish News, 21 July 2009
An end to moderation?
While a number of international sites, such as the BBC, no longer moderate user comments, instead relying on inappropriate comments being 'reported' by other users, heavy moderation is commonplace across Australian news sites. It's likely that, as website volume increases (or funding decreases), these sites will soon find it impractical to continue current levels of comment childcare.
Obviously, this will contribute to free-flowing and lively discussions.
Well, maybe.
What is worrying is the general standard of comments currently finding their way through the heavy moderation process. And when I say worrying, I mean faith-in-countrymen-shattering.
Here's a fun and entirely random selection from the Herald Sun (okay, they're mainly from Andrew Bolt's blog, as it saves time):
Well, it might be hard to argue Sandilands was actually defamed by this statement, given his current public standard.
If you can take it, here's a selection of wonderful human beings commenting on a post by Andrew Bolt in which he suggests that women are "more superstitious" (why do I suspect he means "more stupid"?) than men because they are "doing more to tackle climate change".
My favourite? Hard to pick, but at a pinch:
Given the author is a woman called Franny, it's hard to argue.
If you can stand more, Crikey had an interesting post about moderation on Bolt's blog back in February.