Broadcasting Vs Narrowcasting

Andrew Olle (Pic courtesy Australia media hall of fame)

The other day, gentle reader, I listened to the Andrew Olle Memorial lecture, given this year by Fran Kelly.

It was an excellent address, and coincided with the ABC's online platforms releasing a major restructure of their news and information offerings. One of the features of this reorganisation is the capacity for consumers to tailor content based on their interests.

On the face of it, this would seem to be a great way to develop and maintain an audience.

But after listening to Kelly's address, I began to consider a downside to this capacity of consumers to narrow their choices, based on her concept of a shared audience. Reflecting on her seventeen years of breakfast radio, she described the great sense of community that develops around broadcast radio.

She talked about the variety of listeners, the early morning joggers, the tradies on site setting up a job, the parents driving the school drop, the farmers on their harvesters, and the retirees enjoying a lie in, as participants in this community.

She's right, of course, as live radio is a medium that (unlike this one) allows you to move through your daily tasks whilst maintaining your participation. 

You can flick seamlessly using whatever app works, from mobile phone, to car audio, to radio, without the listening process interfering with the task at hand.

I thought about that against the context of the new ABC online platform which allows you to concentrate narrowly on your own set of topics, and wondered what that would do to the sense of a shared community embedded in broadcast radio.

Surely, there will be a trend from broadcasting to narrowcasting (if such a word exists), which is anathema to community.

This move by the ABC is no doubt directed by a belief that the national broadcaster is competing with the other networks for the listener's ear. I'm not sure it is, and whether a redevelopment of the platform will make any difference. 

Frankly, I believe the people determining the future of the ABC should listen to the parts in her address dealing with the threat of misinformation to the listener, and spend time and money on combatting that.

Otherwise, the prediction given in her address that within five years 90% of what is posted on the internet will be AI generated fakery*, may well come to pass.

*see 41.20 in the address.

 

Crime, Punishment and Politics

Image courtesy Brittanica

Recent elections in Queensland and the Northern Territory have seen a change in government based on policies that are tough on crime.

These policies were reduced to three or four word slogans, such as "Adult crime - adult time" in the case of Queensland, and three point programmes - "Reduce Crime; Rebuild the Economy and Restore our Lifestyle" in the case of the Northern Territory. The Country Liberal Party in the Territory is slightly more expansive in their use of the English language, but it's pretty simple stuff.

So, gentle reader, let's follow the KISS* principle, and keep it simple.

The simplicity ought to mean that if children are locked up for serious crimes in both jurisdictions, the crime rate should fall. Now that is a prediction, and not a certainty. To discover whether or not the action of jailing children lowers the crime rate, it's necessary to look at statistics.

Amongst the many learned articles available on Google Scholar on the topic is an international study. It found that there is no consensus on the impact of the criminal justice system on criminal activity, but that increasing the risk of apprehension and conviction is influential in reducing crime. It's a very detailed study and looks at statistics from a range of locations including California and New South Wales, but found no evidence that an increase in incarceration rates reduces crime.

That conclusion is arrived at by the research over and over again. Having said that, there is a correlation between effective policing and the crime rate.

What to me is significant is the role of the media. Stories about home invasions, street stabbings and random violence invariably attract attention. Reports of domestic violence are not so attention grabbing, although statistically more people (men women and children) are harmed in these latter circumstances than the former.

These media reports enhance the fear narrative used by politicians to seek and hold power, but there is no reason to believe that punitive measures increase public safety and the quality of community life.

Maybe it makes sense to compare recidivism rates across various jurisdictions, identify those countries with the lowest rates,  and examine the practices that reduce recidivism. Currently, Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates worldwide (20%) which compares with the USA which has both one of the highest (68%) and shares with China and Turkey the highest incarceration rates. This map is instructive.

Incarceration rates worldwide (the darker the higher) - courtesy  Wikipedia

The countries with the lowest recidivism rates are Iceland, Finland and Norway. Maybe we should look at their practices. The Scandnavian option is deccribed here.  What is statistically clear is that getting tough on crime simply doesn't work, whereas prison reform does.

That is, unless you want to use it as a scare tactic in an election. In that context it seems pretty effective. It does nothing for your constituency, but it does get you elected.

*Keep It Simple Stupid

What Price Sovereignty?

 

This photo of a Chinese made shirt is a reminder, gentle reader, of the profound changes in our relationships with the rest of the world that have emerged in my lifetime.

When I was growing up in the fifties (yep - I'm really old) most of the clothes I wore were made in Australia.

Back then the rag trade was well established locally. 

In Sydney, for example, there were nine thousand (mostly women) working in clothing and tailoring, over four thousand in dress and hat-making, and about eight thousand in shirt making.

Today, if all clothing made in China, Bangladesh or Vietnam vanished overnight, there would be a lot of naked Australians wandering about.

Then there's motor cars. My first memory of our family car was a  green 1952 Austin A40.

Our A40's number was Q484451.

Then there was a Vanguard Spacemaster. 

Our Vanguard. Rego was Q645324 (rear only).

Both these were British imports, but by then an Australian industry had developed on the heels of Ben Chifley's push for local manufacturing, and later we owned a series of Australian made Holdens.

My first non-Australian made purchase was a Renault, but since then I've been buying cars from Japan or Korea. The coalition government pretty much chased local manufacturing away in 2013 because it was ideologically opposed to both unionised workforces and supporting local manufacturing, and there hasn't been a local industry since.

The same phenomenon has occurred in the full range of manufacturing industries, to the point where not very much is made here. We have become a country where we confine ourselves to digging minerals up and exporting them, only to have them converted to manufactured goods offshore which we then buy as imports.

Manufacturing contributes only 6.3% to Australia's GDP, and export earnings through manufacturing are 11% of the total. Only 6.8% of the Australian workforce is employed in manufacturing.

We are almost entirely relying on imports to maintain our lifestyle. This is perhaps not a large issue, except that opportunities for careers in the sector have shrunk, but I find the fact that we are almost entirely reliant on imports for vital commodities such as transport fuels pretty alarming.

Australia holds about a month of fuel supply onshore. Under International Energy Agency rules, we need to hold 90 days in reserve. We do, but most of that 90 days worth is actually tanked overseas!

Perhaps I'm succumbing to some kind of nationalist paranoia, but I find these facts difficult to accept. We seem to have forgotten our recent history.

Perhaps the election of an avowedly isolationist US administration will encourage us to take a look at our national sovereignty. 

We are, let's face it, on our own.

A Letter to Heston

I received an email from Heston Russell the other day. He is the founder of the now defunct Australian Values Party.

He is asking for an apology from the ABC for alleged misreporting.

This is what I wrote in reply - 

Dear Heston 

I note you’re asking for an apology from the ABC for misreporting.

Fair enough, but I’ve just about given up on getting an apology for the treatment of tens of thousands of young Australians from 1965 to 1972.

I’m referring of course, to the heinous National Service Act 1964, introduced by a Coalition government. This piece of legislation conscripted one in twelve twenty year olds to be enlisted in the ARA, and sent about sixteen thousand of us to Vietnam, to participate in a futile and tragic conflict which killed millions of Vietnamese, fifty seven thousand Americans, and five hundred Australians, two hundred of them conscripts. I saw two of them die in April 1970. Misreporting is a pretty venial sin compared to that.

Where does your Australian Values Party stand on support for ex-service personnel?

If you’re serious about justice and fairness, as an ex-serviceman, you should be advocating for national servicemen, about thirty thousand who survive. Those, like me, who saw active service, have been compensated, after years of struggle, but those who served in Australia, PNG and Malaysia, have not. The DVA white card which they have now been grudingly granted offers very limited support.

Here is a piece I wrote about my experience, which is far from unique. I am one of the lucky ones. Three members of my rifle section had succumbed to trauma by the time of the Welcome Home march in October 1987. It was too late for them -  https://independentaustralia.net/australia/australia-display/reflections-on-the-fall,4404

So until you’re ready to publicly advocate for an apology for national servicemen, you won’t get any support from me. Every email you send simply reinforces my opinion that you put political  affiliation before support for veterans. Prove me wrong.

Bob Whittaker

5 Platoon, B Coy, 7RAR, 1970

Birds of a Feather

George Santos (Courtesy Wikipedia)

Troy Thompson (Courtesy Townsville Bulletin)

 

Today, gentle reader, I'm comparing two individuals who have entered positions of public office on the basis of confected fantasies. To put it in words of one syllable, they lied their way into office.

Despite the fact their behaviour is separated in time and distance, it is similar. The similarities border on the uncanny. It is almost is if it was scripted by the same writer, and to introduce a cliche, in their cases, truth is often stranger than fiction.

The first is a local.

Troy Thompson (nee Birnbrauer*) contested the mayoralty of Townsville, and won, defeating the incumbent Jenny Hill, in the 2024 local government elections.

He had previously attempted to contest the state electorate of Thuringowa as a One Nation candidate, but was disendorsed because he did not disclose his directorship of a supply chain management company that became insolvent in 2017.

Being disendorsed by One Nation should have rung alarm bells for the electors of the city of Townsville, but it didn't. What did create problems for him was his CV which he promoted heavily whilst campaigning, both in local and social media.

That CV claimed he had military service, comprising five years as a reservist in Australia, with 109 Signal Squadron before serving with 152 Signal Squadron attached to the SAS at Karrakatta W.A.

The truth was a little different. He had in fact enlisted in 1991 as a Catering Corps reservist. I assume he had hoped that Townsville voters wouldn't discern the difference between a commando and a cook.

As Townsville is a garrison city with a large military population, who understood pretty well the role and function of army units, this military reference was probably a mistake. In addition, he claimed academic qualifications including bachelor degrees in science and commence from Griffith and Curtin universities, displayed on his LinkedIn profile. He had neither.

He was sprung when he gave a speech on Anzac Day wearing a heap of medals. They weren't his, and he wore them correctly on the right, but the lack of personal medals from his advertised service  (which he should have been able to display on the left) created conjecture. The local media got on to it, and he was  referred to the Office of the Independent Assessor.

He has been stood down on full pay for twelve months, and the payment of his salary is something that Townsville residents are not all that happy about. It seems that being creative with your CV can, for a while at least, deliver optimal financial results.

The second aspiring politician was an American.

George Santos is a former US congressman and convicted felon who served in a New York congressional district before he was expelled.

He won the seat (on his second attempt) after having fabricated a CV which did not disclose his criminal record, contained a completely fictional account of his business activities, income, and personal employment history.

This fact was lost on the voters, and he defeated his Democrat rival, Robert Zimmerman in the midterms. After his victory, numerous reports emerged that his his biography appeared fabricated. Eventually he admitted lying about his education and employment history, 

Eventually, he was expelled from congress, but not before he had participated in a number of crucial votes, including the vote removing house speaker Kevin McCarthy.

After his expulsion he pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. He is scheduled for sentencing on February 7, 2025.

What these two have in common is their complete disregard for the truth in the quest for political power. The demise of the profession of journalism in favour of opionistas who sell discord and fiction for profit has seeped across the Pacific, and this trend is turbocharged by social media.

I doubt that it will end well.

*He took the name of the woman he married in 1996.

Rewriting history

Apart from being priceless viewing, gentle reader, this grab illustrates pretty clearly the consequences of a ham fisted attempt to rewrite history.

The bill is unlikely to pass a second reading, as ACT's coalition partners have indicated they will not support it.

So it's going nowhere, but this is a great spectacle.

Enjoy!

Sound and Fury?

 

Pic courtesy Public Delivery

No doubt, gentle reader, you are fed up to the back teeth with the soap opera that is the US presidential election. It will continue, as an issue, to be milked by all media, both social and corporate, for weeks and months to come.

Maybe it would help to push the sensational reporting, the endless conjecture, and the triumphalism and despair aside for a bit, and look at a few (very) simple facts.

Turnout is always a good statistic to check. It looks like coming in at about 65%, which is a few percentage points lower than in 2020. I could attempt to analyse the reason for the small decline, but that would be conjecture, best avoided. The fact remains, however, that despite claims to the contrary, this election was unremarkable in terms of voter engagement.

Let's look at the popular vote. Best projection (they're still counting here and there) is Trump 50.5%, Harris 48.0%.

Applying some basic (if unconventional) analysis to that, could be informative. 

If you add votes for Harris to the quantum of non-voters, you get 48% + 35% (100% - 65%) = 83%. Put simply, 83% of eligible voters did not support the winner, or if all the 35% did, they didn't believe that the situation was serious enough to warrant a trip to a booth, a dropbox, or the hassle of completing a mail-in ballot.

It makes media references to a "landslide" or "unprecedented realignment" look pretty silly.

So after taking that metaphorical cold shower, the pundits should probably look at their forecasts of an historical shift in trans-Pacific politics, for two reasons. One is that Trump is notorious for over promising. You need only to look at his first term to understand that simple reality. There is no new unbroken border wall, for example, and what there is, was paid for by American, rather than Mexican taxpayers.

Promises about vaccines (Operation Warp Speed) were not kept, and Obamacare was not repealed. His promise to end gun-free zones was also not kept, and is an example of an issue unaffected by the pandemic, which has been used as an excuse for some of his broken commitments.

So the rhetoric he used to get into power is not a clear indicator of what he will do with that power. It reminds me a little of the cliche about a dog chasing cars and what it would do if it actually caught one. Trump's failed business ventures are text book examples of unfulfilled promises.

Finally, I learned a useful lesson about Americans when I served beside them in Vietnam fifty plus years ago. Whilst I shouldn't generalise, and there are some very smart Americans,  the quip we often made after encounters with Yanks in country was "You can tell them anything; sell them anything".

That seems to me to remain largely true.