On the media, readers and political misconceptions

One perspective.........

From the pen of xkcd

Yet another...........

.......people typically receive corrective information within “objective” news reports pitting two sides of an argument against each other, which is significantly more ambiguous than receiving a correct answer from an omniscient source. In such cases, citizens are likely to resist or reject arguments and evidence contradicting their opinions – a view that is consistent with a wide array of research.... [When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions]

And another again.......

A large majority of Australians believe that most forms of media in Australia are ‘often biased’, a special Roy Morgan telephone survey finds.
The survey also finds a majority of Australians believe newspaper and TV journalists and talk-back radio announcers ‘often get their facts wrong’. Large majorities believe that newspaper and TV journalists ‘invade people’s privacy unnecessarily’. However, they are divided on whether the media are ‘too left-wing leaning’ or ‘too right-wing leaning’. [Roy Morgan Research 2007]

Where I decide to go fishing and almost miss Barry O'Farrell making a right twit of himself...

Looked at the sky early yesterday morning and decided it mightn't be a bad day to wet a line.
Imagine my surprise on returning to shore to discover it wasn't only the fish that had been taking the bait - NSW Lib leader Barry O'Farrell had also been swiftly reeled in by the Twitterverse.

benraue: Did @barryofarrell just accidentally tweet a 'deeply off the record' comment to @latikambourke? http://twitpic.com/25b9bk
via Twitpic 20+ recent retweets

stilgherrian: Is "Rangatweetgate" a word? Well it is now. #rangatweetgate #rtg via TweetDeck Retweeted by benraue and 2 others

Bazza's loose lips explain why Coalition candidates on the NSW North Coast are so lacklustre - only second stringers are applying!

The concept of a dysfunctional life and the national e-health database

Ever since medical doctors such as John D'Arcy first began to appear on television screens, be heard on radio and be quoted in print commenting on social, economic and political aspects of Australian life it became apparent that medicalisation of the media and everyday life was well underway in Australia.

All behaviour commonly thought of as unacceptable (and even some behaviours previously falling within 'normal' ranges) quickly became defined as some form of deviance, psychopathology or physical illness. Nevermore so than when applied to those without a large measure of social or political power ie., children and the poor, which had previously only suffered under moral labels such as "lazy" and "bad".

If you are under voting age or come from a socio-economic band found at the bottom of the pecking order then it is highly likely that many aspects of your life are now considered to be so dysfunctional that the state must step in to regulate your behaviour - as instanced by the Australian Government's staged national roll out of a scheme quarantining at least half of the fortnightly cash transfer amount received by certain welfare recipients.

That Australia was not alone in experiencing this domination by the world view of health professionals was obvious when one noticed that internationally this phenomena was being debated, including such issues as the cross-over between moral and medical explanations of criminal behaviour, the medicalisation of sleep and fads in diagnosis which saw some previously rare diagnoses cluster in ways that surprised many epidemiologists.

One only has to look at the increased incidence of multiple personality diagnoses (an estimated 10 per cent of the 1991 North American adult population had a DSM-III-R dissociative disorder of some kind) in the years since The Three Faces of Eve was first picked up by the world-wide media to realise that something may be amiss.

Much of this past discussion was confined to the halls of academia and often only broke free of those constraints via humour, instanced in the late 1980's by an early version of The Etiology and Treatment of Childhood which can now found on the Internet and, more recently by George Monbiot's A Modest Proposal for Tackling Youth.

In the current century this medicalisation of the human condition is so entrenched that some in the principal offending professions became a mite uncomfortable and now posit the theory that we are all to blame for this state of affairs:
Originally, the concept of medicalisation was strongly associated with medical dominance, involving the extension of medicine's jurisdiction over erstwhile 'normal' life events and experiences. More recently, however, this view of a docile lay populace, in thrall to expansionist medicine, has been challenged. Thus, as we enter a post-modern era, with increased concerns over risk and a decline in the trust of expert authority, many sociologists argue that the modern day 'consumer' of healthcare plays an active role in bringing about or resisting medicalisation.
However, this concern has not halted the inexorable march forward of this universal redefinition of life.

In 2010 it seems that children are being further defined by the concept of criminal behaviour and in June this impressively titled study was released by the British Home Office; Experimental statistics on victimisation of children aged 10 to 15: Findings from the British Crime Survey for the year ending December 2009, England and Wales.

This study seeks to define the following scenario as a crime in law:
At home, two siblings are playing and one of them deliberately smashes the other's toy.

Now before you start shaking your head or roaring with laughter (because after all everything is so normal and sane in your particular corner of the national garden) think about the ramifications of this penchant for defining so much of the human condition as deviance, dysfunction, congenital defect or criminal activity.

Think about what the Gillard Labor Government's e-health national database of all Australian citizens (privately endorsed by the Federal Coalition Opposition ) may actually permanently contain by way of label or opinion concerning your own health, lifestyle decisions and family dynamics.

These digital records will not only affect how you are viewed today and tomorrow by officialdom in all its many guises, they might also affect how competent the state deems you to be as you enter frail old-age and whether control of your assets/financial affairs are assumed by another.

Scared yet?

Ratio of national leader's pay to their country's GDP per person

When you don't get what you pay for?

The Economist on 5th July 2010

Clarence Valley Council: when does a précis turn into an attempt to censor and distort?

In response to "So What": the face of not-so-good governance on the NSW North Coast.

The Clarence Valley community is entitled to be concerned in regard to the process adopted by the Clarence Valley Council to reduce public budget submissions to a précis form, then respond to the précis.

It is not unreasonable for our elected council representatives to be pressed for time, so one can understand the beneficial logic behind such process. Unfortunately it has not taken long for Council's unelected bureaucrats to exploit the foibles of this process.

It had been pointed out in previous budget submissions that Grafton came into amalgamation carrying a $1.2m deficit while Maclean came in with a surplus. But I could not find any evidence that Council had ever reconciled that deficit.

It is on public record that Council's rates and service expenditures are calculated on the percentage levels that existed at time of amalgamation. Consequently an unreconciled $1.2m deficit more than likely still exists, undetected and negatively influencing council finances.
Naturally I raised this query in my budget submission.

In its infinite wisdom, administration responded that the deficit had been offset by:-

a) Purchase of sections of Stage 2 Yamba Bypass (est. $1m)
b) Purchase of open space at Townsend (est $216k)

I pointed out in my subsequent budget submission that a) and b) are debts and when paid appreciate in value generating direct/indirect revenues for Council. Therefore a debt cannot reconcile/offset a deficit which is an imbalance in council ledgers and continues until reconciled.

Embarrassed by its faux pas, administration reduced my submission to précis form, to read:-

"Concern that the issue of the GCC bringing a $1.2m deficit into amalgamation while the MSC brought in a surplus has not been adequately answered."

Administration then boldly answered its (misinterpreted) précis:-

"Amalgamation occurred on 25-2-04. This response is written on 21 June 2010 and it is "so what".

These are public monies administration are mismanaging. To properly reconcile this deficit, Grafton rates should have been increased in line with its service expenditures or, its service expenditures should have been reduced in line with its income.
As neither was done, Grafton has continued to live beyond its means at the expense of the rest of the shire.

If these self-serving unelected bureaucrats can be indicted for their inept administration, then they must also stand indicted for their self-indulgent and less than totally frank integrity, ethics and moral values.

Their contemptuous disregard for the community consultation process undermines public confidence and erodes public trust as energetically as it mutilates democracy.

Ray Hunt
Yamba

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents.Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Putting Australia's external population pressures into perspective

This is what you are anxious about?
Hat tip to Venessa Paech for first finding and then tweeting this graph displayed on Robert Corr's weblog:

















The graph in another form at Overland:

Click on images to enlarge

One local battle in the 2010 Australian federal election is underway on the Internet

The battle for Page on the NSW North Coast is well and truly joined and Saffin gets a shot out of the locker at Hogan:

Saffin says Federal Nationals disenfranchising young voters

Friday, 09 July 2010 16:25

Page MP Janelle Saffin MP says the Nationals and Liberals have blocked moves to help more young people exercise their right to vote in the next Federal election.

Ms Saffin said there are an estimated 1.4 million people missing from the electoral rolls, and 70 per cent of these are young people.

"The Liberals and Nationals voted against the Australian Government's legislation that would have given people one week after an election is called, to enrol to vote.

"The seven day close of rolls period is an important safeguard to make sure eligible voters have time to enrol.

"Under the Howard Government, this safeguard was abolished, leaving tens of thousands of young people without a vote at the 2007 Federal election.

"And now the Nationals and Liberals have blocked the Government's legislation to reintroduce the seven day period.

"Australians can enrol to vote as soon as they turn 18, but in reality many don't think about voting until there is an election campaign.

"Because of the actions of the Nationals and Liberals, when the Federal election is called this year new voters will only have until the end of that day to enrol (or the next business day if the election is called on a weekend).

"I challenge Nationals candidate Kevin Hogan to tell young people why he stopping more young people from voting.

"And I urge all eligible voters to make sure they are on the electoral roll so they can exercise their democratic right to vote on Election Day.

"If young Australians wait, they could lose their opportunity to vote, thanks to the Kevin Hogan's Federal colleagues in the National Party and the Liberals," Ms Saffin said.

Pics from The Nationals website and The Daily Examiner - Hogan on the left & Saffin on the right