Spin City
Guidomedia opinion

NSW – the Stalinist state 16 July 2008
NSW’s extraordinary raft of laws enacted for the July 2008 World Youth Day Popefest have had their inevitable effect: police struggling to set cultural standards. The laws are designed to prevent any expression of opinion which might be annoying to the visiting packs of Catholic youth, policed by the police and – more outrageously – the SES and rural fire brigade.
Crikey.com.au recently published this report from a reader: “A friend wearing a ‘Brendan Cowell is not Jesus’ T-shirt was stopped and questioned by police yesterday while on her way to work. Unfortunately she happens to work close by the Darling Harbour Hungry Mile site. She was finally released from their clutches and allowed to roam free to annoy Brendan Cowell fans presumably.”
Why, oh why do we allow this? We’ve already witnessed the rozzers bumbling through art galleries chasing Bill Henson photos, amply proving that culture is well beyond their abilities and brief. Since when did we agree that police are to set what constitutes an acceptable publication? The impact is one that amounts to bullying that any dictatorial regime would be proud of. It does neither NSW or the police any credit and makes both look idiotic.
Fortunately a federal court has found the laws invalid, but it’s too little too late and the entire action should have been unnecessary.
To me this suggests that politicians in this country are really losing the plot when it comes to what they see as being their role. It is to protect rights, not trample them; To prevent people from being harmed by debate, not to prevent the debate itself.

One less monument to misery
The Big Brother TV franchise is finally grinding to a turgid and pathetic closure – thank heavens for that. Outrageously, the program is seen as the elder statesman of ‘reality’ TV, though it has as much to do with reality as Mickey Mouse.
It is in fact a hugely profitable lab rat exercise deliberately designed to trade on people’s misery. Though making a questionable contribution to the human gene pool, the contestants probably deserve to be treated better than halfwit monkeys dancing to the tune of an unseen organ grinder.
Largely unscripted television trading on stupidity, conflict and suffering is indefensible and, in this case, only one step back from being a snuff film. As the news snippet below shows, this genre is in fact edging towards that very nightmare – where a contestant in a marketing stunt for a lab rat show in India was nearly killed and may yet turn out to be permanently damaged.

Pollies fail the social media test 4 November 2007
(Opinion) There is growing argument that politicians in the current federal election are failing to grasp how to use social media such as MySpace, YouTube and the like – missing its true networking powers and using it instead as a cheap means of broadcast and/or something they feel they have to engage with.
Perhaps that’s not so outrageous in the case of YouTube, the motto of which is, “Broadcast yourself.” Nevertheless even it has an immediate response mechanism and develope threads of conversation via video.
Crikey commentator Stilgherrian recently asked, “The problem with the politicians’ use of social media? They completely miss the basic concept: it’s about conversation.
“They’re still locked into a centrally-planned one-way industrial age media model, talking at the public with a broadcast message. Political strategies are still crafted like the Soviet economy of 1948.”
That argument goes on to say that neither the John Howard or Kevin Rudd MySpace sites make proper use of the medium. However Senator Andrew Bartlett, of the Democrats, does seem to get it – which may have something to do with his years of experience as a blogger.
More significant is how effective individuals on the social networking sites have been acting as a spoiler and reality check on the far-better funded political campaigns.
It is not in any danger of challenging the sheer ‘muscle’ enjoyed by free to air TV, though you could argue its modest numbers are often balanced by far better cut-through for the message. (See our 30 October story.)
GA
Links
Howard MySpace (little info offered), Rudd MySpace (repeats ALP site), Bartlett MySpace (has personal information & tastes), Bartlett blog (regularly updated diary), Crikey

Beware injurious falsehood 18 September
What do the companies 2Clix (software), David Jones (retailing) and Gunns (paper) have in common?
All three believe they may have found a way of circumventing the 2005/2006 changes to defamation law, which essentially blocked corporations from suing for defamation.
They have been using a commercial law, referring to “injurious falsehood”, to chase people who have dented their corporate images.
2Clix is chasing an online tech forum, Whirlpool, for some unkind reviews and commentary on its product; David Jones is after the Australia Institute (which described the retailer’s kids fashion images as bordering on child porn); Gunns is after a Tasmanian doctor (with connections to an environmental lobby group) who described its wood chip piles as a health hazard.
All of which says that if you’re a blogger, a community group, or an individual, beware.
Each of the companies, in addition to proving injury and falsehood, will have to show there was an intent to cause damage -- in other words the ‘attack’ was deliberately malicious. That may prove difficult.
More sinister, however, is that it opens the door for those with a large chequebook to intimidate those who don’t. Legal action is time-consuming and expensive, no matter who wins – a modest action that ties up people for a couple of weeks and costs $50,000 to $100,000 might seem like pretty good value to a company wanting to silence its critics. For writers and publishers, it means you'd probably be wise to stick to the basic principles of defence against defamation --- which is ensure you at least have truth and preferably public interest on your side -- when writing about a corporation.
GA
More info: Defending Scoundrels link, Crikey story, The Australian

On the recently-reported efforts by various Federal Govenment employees to edit Wikipedia entries...

It’s win-win with Wikipedia, by Terry Cantwell -- Link (5 September)

Wiki-tedious, by Kristin MacDonald -- Link (5 September)

Fairfax drops recruiting to pathetic levels 30 August
Fairfax has announced that it will drop its cadet recruiting to just four annual positions each at The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. Half will go to university graduates and half to school-leavers.
It’s clearly pathetic that a major employer is dropping the ball on training up new staff, but in these days where organisations often reward people for using the combination of economic rationalism and shortest-term view possible, it’s hardly surprising.
It will send a message to graduates of journalism and media programs that their expensive university degree may have been a complete waste of money, particularly since the company plans to start both groups of people on the same salary.
However it also displays a breathtaking level of contempt and ignorance about tertiary programs on the part of that employer. Fortunately it is not universal.
Plenty of other companies have long been expressing a preference for graduates. Unlike Fairfax they’ve worked out that, while they might not be completely trained in that particular workplace practice, they come armed with useful skills. (Applications for the positions open next week and close on 14 September.)
See this older piece on the subject.
GA

Hysteria follows gutter journalism 29 August
Melbournians are being treated to a weird form of hysteria being played out in the media at the moment, after Channel 7 resorted to gutter journalism – literally – to sex up a news report last Friday.
Journalist Dylan Howard used a series of medical files, bought from someone who claimed to have found them in a gutter outside a clinic in suburban Northcote, to claim that a prominent Australian Football League (AFL) team had problems with wide-spread drug use among its players.
The AFL immediately slapped an injunction on the channel going any further with the story – something that is still being fought out in the courts.
Plus the organization has removed Howard from its PR lists and clubs are encouraging its players not to talk to the network, which is an official broadcaster.
This is a right old mess. The station screwed up when it bought the documents and put the contents to air. It risks facing criminal charges if they’re found to be stolen, and has crossed a major ethical boundary.
However the AFL hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory on this one either. It clearly has drug problems and is using primitive tactics to deny it, then turns around and wants to shoot the messenger.
But perhaps the worst aspect is the ludicrous amount of space being dedicated to the issue. Let’s see what we have here: a famous and relatively rich sports person using drugs…sorry, but where is the news in that?
GA
Age story on ratings drop
Herald Sun report on player being investigated

Haneef case breaks new ground on trial by media 24 August
The release by Haneef’s lawyers of the second full transcript of their client’s police interview has stretched the envelope on what is regarded as reasonable behavior when it comes to ‘trying’ a case in the public domain.
The release has enabled media and the public to read for themselves what happened, which in turn throws a different light  on the allegations made my Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.
It was Andrews’ own actions of selective release of the material which triggered recent events.
Interestingly the adoption of the internet as a popular medium has also aided events – it has enabled publishers to offer the full transcript (all 300 pages) easily and cheaply – something that simply would not have been possible with other technologies.
Example at The Australian

Ludicrous banner of the week (21 June)
And the prize goes to the Herald-Sun website for its Confidential section, which features – wait for it – the Packer wedding! What on earth could possibly be confidential about the country’s biggest newspaper headlining with a story about the country’s richest man, that has at least four break-outs, a video and photo gallery?

ABC News redesign is more significant than appearances suggest
It would be easy to dismiss the redesign of the ABC News website as simply a reshuffling of the deckchairs, or dressing up the proverbial mutton to look like lamb. But you would be very wrong.

Look a little deeper at the intent and it reveals some forward thinking which should be taken heed of by any professional editorial website out there.

In fact, the ABC’s 90-second video tour of the pages makes it plain what the priorities are:

1. Speed – many of us might be using broadband, but in peak demand times in particular that counts for little. Any delay in getting the information in front of your user is too long;
2. More user control is the way of the future. And this isn’t simply getting people involved in the editorial (which in fact predates the internet), but assisting them in consuming the information in a way – or via a path – that suits them. A good example is the ability for users to literally stitch together their own TV-style news bulletin.

The model used by the ABC may not be perfect, but many of the features and techniques they’ve adopted have resonance with a long-term internet publishing research project of my own. They are definitely heading in the right direction.

See this link

Bland broadband

Neither the Federal Government nor the Opposition have anything to be proud of when it comes to internet policy in this country. It has been comprehensivly lazy and ignorant.

Australia has been ranked poorly internationally (usualy below 15th) for several years when it comes to the take-up of fast internet access, the effects of which are made worse by our geographical isolation.

This is not something that is a nice little luxury, but a matter of business survival on an increasingly unforgiving international playing field.
The physical size of our country, and its low poulation, makes this a unique but far from impossible problem. Unfortunately, too little time has been spent coming up with solutions.

In an election year, this is not top of mind for many people -- but just one of the many fields of battle.

The Opposition’s grand plan for a fast-access roll-out is too slow, and the Government’s is a cobbled-together mess -- neither of which reflect a real vision for what may happen in the future. They’re short-term political pamphlets.

Now we’re in the absurd situation where the battle has been complicated by the former public-owned telco whinging about a Singapore-owned telco getting a local contract. And that might have happened because Telstra has been fighting the Prime Minister in public -- though there’s no proof (but plenty of evidence) of that.

It’s likely we’ll regret the day when Telstra passed out of public ownership. Selling it just when the media industry was going through seismic shifts was a mistake.

Guy Allen

This digital country (15 Feb, 2007)
You’ll see in our news today that a group of journos in Sunny Downtown Toowoomba (Qld – see www.whereis.com.au) have decided to start up their own digital newspaper, called Toowoomba Digital News (TDN). The story so far run on electronic media is that some of them got the heave-ho from the local print rag and decided to have a go themselves. Regardless of the truth of the matter, good on them – media thrives on competition and, as a long-term digital and print writer/editor/publisher, I have to say it’s great to get a fresh influx of good old-fashioned editorial expertise into the web sphere.
The interface they’ve chosen is a worry, though, and will no doubt change rapidly as they meet the near vertical learning curve that is the web. They’re using an animated page-turning look, which replicates how a newspaper works. Fine in theory, and perhaps even comforting to a few folk. But in a rural market, where band-width and download speeds are a real issue, I suspect this is not such a hot idea. Also, they may be underestimating their audience. My experience is that if people can run a computer, they can run a web page. Sadly, an animated newspaper does not qualify on that front -- it's a different animal. Simple and clean web design that downloads ultra-quickly wins friends in the long run. Leave the tricky stuff for optional links – much like the metro newspapers do on their sites.
However the techno side of my nature wants me to say they should keep going with the interface. But, if they do, they need to look at a few issues. One is typefaces. Serif (or decorated) faces such as good old Times Roman works well in print, but turns to grey on a 72dpi backlit computer screen – an example of how the producers will need to get their production heads out of the presses.
Red Zero mag, which is pitched at a much narrower and perhaps younger audience has this right. Though using smaller pages, it is more readable. And, while far from perfect, it makes much better use of the interactivity of the medium. I suspect Red Zero is not out of the business woods just yet.
Oh, and the Toowoomba paper looks like it’s been designed by journos. I have no problem with that (and have been guilty of the same ‘crime’) but I’d suggest they simplify what they’re doing. Forget about designing print pages. Your readers are on-screen and need an easy single scan. That doesn't change the message, but it does alter the method of delivery. Give them what they want fast – damned fast – and move on. There’s ample research out there on user-friendly design.
Speaking of which, the editors promise daily updates for some sections. Not enough. Start thinking two or three times a day if you want to differentiate yourself from the print product, and remember that, if this is to be a long-term publication, your next key audience is circa 20-year-olds, who grew up with the medium.
‘Papers’ like TDN have a big future. They can be fast, responsive, interactive and cheap. In coming years, digital suburban publications will also become a force.
In any case – good luck. I sincerely hope it works.
Guy Allen

The great Google heist (15 Feb 2007)
Interested in what actually happened with the weird and wonderful TV deal for the upcoming AFL (football) season? Good luck finding out the details. If you do a Google news search, more than likely you will find the results dominated by the AFL’s own spin. When we searched it today, 10 out of 10 offered links went straight to the AFL’s website. This is sponsored search results gone wrong. We can’t help thinking it’s a little sinister. There are several hundred million dollars of broadcast rights at stake, but that pales in comparison to the value of Google’s reputation – by all means run sponsored links, but do not pretend they are news.
See this story from the Age newspaper for background on the sell-off of broadcast rights.

Sol is a smokescreen (27 September, 2006)
The Feral Government is hugely annoyed at Sol, CEO of Telstra, for lots of reasons: 1 Objecting to a new board member; 2 Not agreeing to a flaky sell-off plan; 3 Showing unusual independence. I have no sympathy for the Feral. If you hire a business figure on the basis he or she will be more efficient, don’t whinge when it doesn’t agree with you.
All of which is a convenient smokescreen and distraction to the government’s dopey cross-media ownership proposals, which have no redeeming feature. There is no public interest – the industry is healthy and feisty enough to look after itself under existing rules. Allowing cross-media mergers, beyond the existing rules which already allow the development of national networks, is insane.
We already have a culture which enables the building of strong networks, be they in print, radio, TV or web. Additional mergers (under the current proposals) will simply encourage the development of socially and politically dangerous duopolies. Furthermore, I’ve yet to be convinced there is a business argument for it. Since when did the health of the business sector thrive on the narrowing of competition – particularly when the economy is expanding?
GA

Content providers in demand (13 September 2006)
It seems the current rapid expansion of online media, and the acquisition of properties by companies like News Ltd, is driving up the demand for online content providers.
We’re seeing a lot more recruiting ads in this sector, with one Sydney company recently offering $160-180k for a managing editor. (See our jobs page.)
Now is good time to be brushing up on those internet editing skills…
GA

Christmas comes early for publishers & broadcasters (12 September)
Communications Minister Helen Coonan has delivered an early Christmas present to the existing players in the broadcast and publishing industries. Actually it’s two presents:
1. The right to bid on the mobile TV or 3G datacasting licence – which was previously reserved for potential new entrants;
2. The rights to bid for a new digital multichannel from 2007.
No doubt Fairfax and News will be intrigued by the opportunity to bid on either the datacasting or digital multichannel – it effectively enables them to become at least peripheral TV participants without having to find a way around troublesome ownership restrictions.
As for the existing free-to-air broadcasters, they probably cannot believe their luck. Here’s the opportunity to get a stake in a new business area and, even if they’re unsuccessful, be in the race to be a content provider for whoever gets the licences.
Of course this all depends on the successful passing of the new media regulation package, which is by no means certain. You can’t help but wonder if this wasn’t a pre-parliament ploy to win support from the media and thus put more pressure on dissenting politicians to play along.  Or is that just being cynical?
GA

Irwin coverage points to shift in web news (5 September)
There was a time not so long ago when publishers of print and internet products knew their respective places: internet, because of its speed, produced the early news, which was updated on the run; While the newspaper provided the in-depth coverage the next morning – perhaps respectfully followed by the web site. This ‘natural’ order has changed, as yesterday’s coverage of the death of Steve Irwin (aka the crocodile hunter) demonstrated.
For example, within five hours of the incident, which occurred in far north Queensland, the Herald Sun web site had two hard news stories (one focussing on the incident, the other on the doctor who treated Irwin at the scene) a backgrounder on stingrays (which is what got Irwin), a map showing where it happened, an obituary, a still photo tribute, plus video of the man in action, and around 200 reader comments on the story. So much for leaving the in-depth coverage to the newspaper…
This clearly puts internet publishers on notice that the expectation is that your web site needs to respond fast and thoroughly if it’s to remain competitive.
Another aspect points to credibility and its price. In times of crisis the ABC’s website seems to be the one people turn to. So many did on September 11, 2001 – when the twin towers in New York were destroyed – that it crashed and the broadcaster had to redesign the site on the run so it took up less bandwidth. Yesterday, again, the interest in Irwin was such that the ABC’s web pipeline was overtaxed and the site briefly defaulted to a headlines-only page. (News.com.au and ninemsn crashed for a while, too, as waves of overseas Irwin fans scoured Australian sites for more info.)
This puts the ABC in an interesting situation -- its audience may go elsewhere for entertainment, but comes running back when the proverbial hits the fan. As a publisher, how do you respond?
That the site defaulted is also a clear warning that it’s very easy for publishers to underestimate the needs of their audiences. The moral seems to be, if in doubt  make sure you have an over-capacity in your distribution so you can actually cope with sudden spikes in demand.
GA

Big Brother and the irony of war (July 5)
If you’re in publishing or broadcasting, brace yourself. We’re starting to feel the chill winds of neo-conservative censorship, as evidenced by the recent Big Brother (BB) episurd. It’s all too reminiscent of what’s been happening in the USA of late.
A quick recap for those not in the know. Lab rat TV show BB got into strife when two of the male housemates grabbed one of the girls in the house and one put his crotch to her face. It happened very early on a Saturday morning and was never put to air by host broadcaster Channel 10. It was seen by a an unknown number of internet viewers – probably not many at 4.00am.
Network 10 tossed out the offending contestants, the police investigated and the girl did not feel the incident warranted pressing charges. End of story? Hell no.
Since then we’ve been treated to a national harrumphing contest.
Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley led with, "If my advice is worth anything to the folk who run Channel Ten, and how they choose to conduct themselves is their business, I'd say make this Big Brother the last." Now there’s a question which begs an unpleasant response. What is his advice worth?
Communications Minister Helen Coonan had her weekend interrupted so she could be the first to put out a media release – now three in four days – launching into a remarkable tirade about those wicked TV people.
It said: “Like most Australians, in particular parents of children who watch the Big Brother programme, I was very concerned to hear details of an alleged incident involving three housemates over the weekend," said Senator Coonan.
“I note that the alleged incident was sexual in nature and make very clear that any allegation of sexual assault is a very serious issue.
“Clearly this is matter for the police and I am advised that Network 10 has provided the footage of Saturday morning’s incident to the Queensland Police.
“Any further action in relation to possible criminal charges emanating from this footage is obviously a matter for the police,” Senator Coonan said.
The Minister has also sought an urgent assessment of the issue and possible breaches of the television code of conduct from the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), the regulator of television content.
“I have spoken with the Chairman of ACMA this morning and he will be providing an urgent assessment about possible breaches of codes of conduct relating to television content.”
Gee, I bet ACMA chair Chris Chapman was just thrilled to bits to get that call on the weekend.
Coonan’s reaction was awry on two fronts: 1. Most Australians probably couldn’t give a proverbial about it – little things like how hard they're being screwed on their new Australian Workplace Agreement is more likely to get their attention; 2. The incident never made it to TV.
The media release was readjusted the next day to waffle on about checking to see if internet transmission rules had been broken – but really it was just a flap so we could all see something was being done.
In a wonderful irony, rival network Channel Nine ran the full footage in a shock-horror piece on its weeknight, prime time TV show, A Current Affair.
Not to be left out of the action, the Prime Minister weighed into the battle during a radio interview: “"I think it is just a question of good taste. Here is a great opportunity for Channel Ten to do a bit of self-regulation and get this stupid program off the air."
The implication is that if they don’t self-regulate, the government will. On what basis? Do we now give TV shows a stupidity rating? If so, it’s a struggle to think of more than three or four that wouldn’t end up in the R category.
We’re in full agreement with Stephen Feneley, who wrote in Crikey’s subscriber newsletter: “The big downside of being a libertarian is having to defend odious garbage like Big Brother. As loathsomely exploitative as BB is, if the moral panic brigade were to succeed in taking it off air, there may be no holding back the censorious tide.”
Channel 10 had already cut its late night adults-only version of BB, largely in response to criticism from the Alternative Prime Minister, Senator Barnaby Joyce. The latest fuss will play right into the hands of those looking for an issue that involves a soft target – perfect material for a politician.
We can’t help wondering if history is repeating itself here. A few years ago we saw federal politics change its mood for the worse, as mainstream parties tried to take over the political ground spotted by the unlamented Pauline Hanson and her band of neo Nazis.
We strongly suspect the right-wing Christian movement, embodied by movements such as Family First, are having a similar effect on the current political arena. Their influence seems far greater than their vote.
There is a precedent to all this, which was Janet Jackson’s infamous ‘wardrobe malfunction’ during the half-time entertainment at the 2004 Super Bowl in the United States. In an act with Justin Timberlake, she briefly revealed a breast.
Next came a fuss that was, frankly, unbelievable. Legislators were climbing over each other in a mad rush to be seen as the first to beat those rotten TV people back into their pens. Does this sound familiar? There’s more…
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from there on took a much harder line with anything that could be interpreted as risqué, while the relevant legislation has been changed to mandate enormous penalties on broadcasters or publishers who overstep the somewhat hazy mark.
A recent report from Broadcasting & Cable says: “In an interview, House Telecommunications Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), a strong proponent of new legislation that has upped the maximum fines for broadcasting indecent programming, says broadcasters brought the law and its tenfold increases in fines upon themselves. He points out it was former FCC chief Michael Powell who launched the Congressional push for boosting indecency fines, aided by Janet Jackson's Super Bowl number and FCC complaints that simply disgusted him. He says, ‘From the day that we introduced the bill and the hearings and the likelihood that this was going to move along to become law, the industry has changed its MO. They are much more cognizant of the rules and potential penalties, and they have made necessary adjustments to being flagged in the future. That means different contracts with personnel, delays on live events and a greater awareness of their responsibility, particularly for the few who are racing to the bottom.’“
The new Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act allows for penalties of up $500,000 per incident – and no-one seems entirely sure what exactly constitutes a breach.
One civil liberties website – The Wide Awakes -- comments: “Unfortunately, this bill leads us more toward censorship. Media outlets, TV and Radio, who are fined $500,000 are going to be very cautious in their programming. Saving Private Ryan was kept off of dozens of ABC stations. Those stations did this in fear, that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. A tremendous movie, possibly one of the best of a generation, not seen by potentially millions, this fear resulted in censorship.”
Sadly, it looks like we’ll be fighting a similar war on these shores.
Literally as we were writing this piece, the legislative wheels were turning. In media release number three on this topic -- launched late this afternoon -- Senator Coonan has announced, "The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will be directed to undertake a detailed review of the free to air television code of practice and legislation will be introduced into Parliament to extend content regulation to video streamed on the Internet."
(See our news story, July 5, for the full details.)
Guy Allen

Broadcasting & Cable interview report; Opinion piece; The Wide Awakes opinion piece ; Crikey

June 7, 2006
Beware the increasingly intolerant court
While journos may have some cause for celebration with the recent changes to defamation law, they have another area to watch: Which is the increasingly intolerant mood towards ‘creative’ reporting techniques and invasion of privacy.
The recent decision against A Current Affair in Sydney (see $310,000 for reporter's deception in today’s news) shows just how nasty this can get. Add the legal action taken against paparazzi who were pursuing Nicole Kidman last year, or the harsh words ("stalking" and "out of line") used in court in a case involving former PM hopeful Mark Latham, and a photographer who ended up with a smashed camera, and you can detect a pattern.
Is this a bad thing? Hell no. Being a creep – even when hiding behind the well-worn veil of informing the public – is still being a creep. The catch is that -- if you can get away with it -- a sensational result can lead to getting noticed, promotion and who knows what dizzy heights.
Maybe a fine of over $300,000, plus costs, is enough to take the shine off just about any story.

Dec 6, 2005
Missile for winning design
From the Middle East Media Research Institute: This is another example of the online propaganda campaign on Islamist forums whose authenticity is difficult to establish.
The information bureau of Jaish Al-Taifa Al-Mansura ("The Army of the Victorious Group"), a Sunni terrorist organization operating in Iraq, announced a contest for designing the organization's website, and stated that the prize would be, in addition to reward from Allah, an opportunity to fire missiles via computer at a US army base in Iraq.
The announcement was posted on a number of Islamic websites, primarily on the Al-Hesbah forum www.alhesbah.org (3) [hosted in Airzona](4), and can also be viewed as a Flash document at http://heretic.maid.to/cgi-bin/stored/serio0835.swf

Nov 1, 2005
Criminal stats
Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty has brushed off criticism over his department’s decision to tip off Indonesian police about the drug-running activities of nine Australians – otherwise known as the Bali Nine. The group was arrested and now faces the death penalty.
People have, not surprisingly, questioned whether it’s the role of police to take action which might lead to the death of the citizens they are supposed to be protecting.
Keelty was unrepentant on the ABC’s Lateline program last night, saying the move potentially saved the lives of many more people. “I'd like to say that there are over 2000 young people aged between the age of 16 and 34 who are alive today who will share this Christmas with their families that might otherwise not be the case if we didn't take the fight against drugs offshore and have the successes that we've had offshore,” he said.
How on earth does he arrive at that figure? The Federal Government’s own stats, published by the Australian Institute of Criminology, say opiate-related deaths of 15 to 54-year-olds in Australia peaked at 1116 in 1999 and had dropped to 364 by 2002 (the latest year for which numbers are available).
Numbers aside, the question has to be asked: If the police had the information, why didn’t they arrest these people on re-entry to Australia where they would still be punished, but not killed?
Keelty went on to say that we share information with the USA, which also has the death penalty. Yes, it does in some states, but generally not for drug-running.
Australian Institute of Criminology
Lateline interview

Oct 31, 2005
When communicators go bad
You would think that if anyone had an interest in communicating, it would be the lead ministers in the Federal Government, and perhaps even the leader of the Opposition. Not so, apparently. Both seem intent on crushing it – unless of course it involves an opinion they share.
In its indecent haste to get anti-terrorism laws through Parliament, the Government has not only tried to stifle debate on a set of legislation which has far broader ramifications that it dares admit, but will cheerfully stampede across any attempt at logic.
When ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope released a draft of legislation on the internet (see our Oct 17 news story), the Prime Minister harrumphed and had the audacity to say Stanhope was breaching government confidentiality. This despite the fact the Feds have been more than happy to do a fair bit of leaking of their own in recent times, when it has suited them.
Stanhope, to his credit, made the document available initially without comment. Though he did add a legal opinion on it in subsequent days.
The Feds were miffed enough to make Stanhope sign a confidentiality agreement before he received subsequent drafts, but this didn’t stop them from trying to take advantage of the ACT Minister’s actions.
A great example was reported by The Age newspaper last Saturday: “Now, the Prime Minister wants state and territory leaders to sign off on the legislation by Tuesday and for the bill to be introduced by week's end. When Attorney-General Philip Ruddock was asked why the hurry, he gave an answer that betrayed the combination of audacity, spin and bluster that characterised his stewardship of asylum-seeker policy.
"’This legislation has been in the public arena now, courtesy of the Australian Capital Territory, for some time,’ he said.”
If the Federal Government could be accused of rampant hypocrisy, the Opposition takes the prize for confusion. Leader Kim Beazley, in a piece of awful timing, suggested our racial vilification laws should be strengthened to allow for jail terms. Those laws were controversial in their own right when they were introduced and this new suggestion has enormous free speech implications.
"Labor will propose national laws on incitement to violence on racial and religious grounds to focus on behaviour which crosses the line between active debate and encouraging violence,” he said at an Australian Christian Lobby conference last Saturday. Who decides on where that line is, and why should we trust them? He then publicly backed the Government's terror proposals.
Meanwhile a junior shadow minister, Peter Garret, was releasing legal advice which highlighted the perils to free speech represented by the Government’s policies – particularly the sections on sedition (see today’s news item). What, we wonder, would he have made of Mr Beazley’s ideas?

Sept 13, 2005
Terrorist TV 101
Is it just us, or is there really a TV presentation course for terrorists? We noticed the latest effort, first played by ABC News in the USA, showed the usual dark headgear and the arrogant wagging of the fundamentalist finger at the not-so-appreciative audience. Though they're admirable for being utterly consistent, maybe we should organise an Australian Idol-style talent quest (Ideology Idol?) to raise the standards. Identifying one contestant from another could be tricky...
Follow the pack
We can’t help being a little bemused by the logic – or complete lack of it – demonstrated by the writer of the Australian Prime Minister’s media release announcing proposals for harsh new anti-terrorist powers for assorted security officials.
It says, “Law enforcement agencies have advised the Government that the introduction of a regime allowing preventative detention during terrorist situations might be critical in preventing an escalation of the incident or subsequent attacks. Similar powers have been available to police in the United Kingdom for some time.”
At first, something that has been in place in the UK seems somewhat reassuring, until of course you realise we’re talking of measures which failed to prevent the London public transport bombings…
The “it’s alright because everyone else is doing it” theme is popular in this area, it seems. UK PM Tony Blair used it a month ago when announcing he was ramping up that country’s legislation even further. “In looking both at the law and administrative measures we have surveyed extensively practice in other countries, including in particular other European countries,” he said. Sound familiar?
Australian Prime Minster media release
UK Prime Minister statement

Guy Allen

Use this tool to search our site or the web.

WWW Guidomedia.com