Things we don’t know we don’t know

4

Oh I have been slack. Do I need an alibi? I do. Well, a sense of unreality as I approach final treatment (after 6 months) on Wednesday. Time has seemed suspended. But I have, in alibi number two, been getting minor, but unpleasant side effects which are just easing now. Hope there is no repeat after this week. And, alibi number three, I planted two fruit trees.

That phrase doesn’t quite conjure up reality. These events are nothing like the occasions when royalty, or celebrity (and no, thank you, but I have not quite achieved Charlie Sheen’s importance), “plants ” a tree by putting a spadeful of dirt on a silver spade into a hole dug by an underling in which a tree already resides. Nor does it resemble those gardening shows where someone photogenic in clean overalls puts hands into soft rich soil and “digs” a hole deep enough for a tree with a few hand movements, quickly returning soil to cover the tree roots in the same way.

No, planting trees (indeed anything down to the smallest seedling) here involves furiously attacking, with frequent rests in my prematurely (well, not that premature but you know what I mean) aged condition, solid rocky ground with mattock and spade. Chipping out small slivers of rock in the way a woodpecker chips out wood. Eventually I achieve, just, a hole big enough (carefully measured, not a chip more, not a chip less) to take the root bundle. Gasping for air, and being careful with my now tender back muscles, I plonk tree into hole fill up, water, protect from rabbits and parrots, and then collapse in heap while contemplating the second tree.

Strange thing that gap between imagination, what you pictured when I said “planting a tree”, and reality, on this rocky hill top

That gap seems to be getting wider all round the world. Last week there were photos of Steve Jobs looking, as my grandmother used to say, like death warmed over. People were already sympathetic, given his sudden retirement, and here was proof of our worst fears of what a terrible state he was in. Except the photos had been photoshopped to make him look much worse than he actually is. Why? A good question.

Over the weekend New York waited to be pounded or lashed (depending on the preference of the reporter) by cyclone Irene, and the world waited with her. How bad was it going to be? And suddenly there were the pictures we had all been dreading, flood waters rising on the streets of New York. Oh no. Well, that’s right, oh no they were faked images.

Then came the images of the “rebels” flooding into Green Square in Tripoli, the war, it seemed, as good as over. But hang on a moment, says Hugo Chavez (managing to lose any remaining admiration I had for him, which he has frittered away in the last few years), those images are faked, must be, propaganda, my good friend Ghadaffi is still in control, defeating this rag bag bunch of terrorists supported by the oil hungry countries of Europe.

Well, it wasn’t that silly a guess. A few weeks ago we had faked video (from the Lebanese civil war) being used for propaganda in Syria. We all remember the faked images (no doubt what Chavez was remembering) created by America in pulling down Saddam Hussein’s statue, the fake story of the kidnapped female American soldier, the contradictory stories about the killing of bin Laden.

Except in the case of Tripoli it wasn’t a fake, indeed given the number of western reporters around (not always insurance, I know), it would have been impossible to fake this particular event. But who is to know? Obama is dead. No he isn’t. In that case he can appear in person to misquote Mark Twain, but the more insidious cases of photoshopping, fake videos, facebook rumours, are impossible to get to the bottom, take on a life of their own among the conspiracy theorists.

In fact the belief that nothing is real, things ain’t necessarily so, is so pervasive now that we can have fake fakeries, as it were. The classic case being the hacking of emails from the climate research unit of the University of East Anglia, and the pretence that these demonstrated a conspiracy to deceive the world about climate change. The people who believe this fake conspiracy continue to do so, in spite of a number of enquiries, and the application of a modicum of common sense.

Now I know you are waiting for me to wrap this up with a dollop of good advice hard-earned from my years of education in the school of hard knocks. But I remain as baffled as you. How do you tell a photoshopped model from a non-photoshopped model on the cover of Vogue? All I can suggest is to take what you are told, especially but not only by politicians and business interests, with a grain of salt. But not a spoonful of salt. Even conspiracy theorists occasionally find a real conspiracy, but on the other hand Elvis remains dead. So tread warily these days, seeing isn’t always believing, nor is hearing or reading – remember my trees. And Hey!

Be careful out there.

Never did me any harm

2

The other day I heard the usual glib discussion of “discipline in schools” on some tv channel. About how terrible it was that teachers these days were subject to violence (certainly any violence against teachers is terrible, but as an aside I think there is a convenient forgetting about history here, as is so often the case. “Blackboard Jungle”, after all, was written in 1954, and there must have been many examples of teachers being treated badly in even earlier times) and how we needed to bring back strong discipline which had been lost as a result of “political correctness”.

But this view of “spare the rod and spoil the child”, “bring back the cane”, “they need a damn good thrashing”, “never did me any harm”, and the like are themselves “political correctness”. It is just that they are the politically correct thoughts of the Right, the authoritarian, the shock jock, the populist politician.

Every time “political correctness” is supposedly being attacked, what is happening is that someone of the conservative side of politics is trying to remove some socially or environmentally aware policy and replace it with a neoconservative one.

At various times in the past it has been politically correct to: burn old ladies as witches; kill bulls and bears with dogs for entertainment; have schoolmasters and fathers beat children senseless with sticks, belt, anything they could lay their hands on; hang people for all kinds of small and large crimes in public; invade resource rich countries owned by brown people who didn’t deserve them (oh, sorry, still with us); insult refugees/migrants by calling them names like wog and reffo, or indeed, in the case of Chinese, slaughtering them; keep women barefoot and pregnant and certainly not voting or owning property; smash down huge areas of trees with chain and be rewarded by being made state premier; kill koalas for fur, birds of paradise for feathers; take land away from Aborigines without compensation, kill many of them, refer to the remainder as Abos and boongs, while chuckling over newspaper cartoons whose joke depended on Aboriginal stupidity; have sex with women while drunk with no reference to consent; drive while drunk; have small children working in factories and mines and chimneys; have black people working as slaves; condemn people to nasty deaths for “blasphemy” against whatever the currently popular imaginary figure in the sky was; ensure that the great majority of the workforce worked very long hours in dangerous or damaging conditions for poor wages; see the mentally ill and disabled treated with scorn and contempt, mental asylums as places for public entertainment, “freak shows” in circuses; see single mothers socially and economically destroyed, their children removed, children of poor families shipped to colonies; see old people end lives in workhouses.

OK, that’s enough, you have got the idea. Those and many more similar concepts were the political correctness of their day. Many are still the political correctness of the kind of people who vote for conservatives against their own economic and social interests. When John Howard railed against “political correctness” he was representing the views of people who were outraged that they could no longer do and say some or all of those things, they having been replaced by approaches and ideas more relevant to a 21st century sensibility and knowledge than an 11th century one.

So it isn’t “political correctness” that stops children being beaten senseless in schools or homes, it is a recognition that the old political correctness that thought such behaviour was normal was wrong and extremely damaging. You want to argue a case for bringing back the birch or the hangman, open sexism and racism? Go for it, (if you are not a shock jock, in which case you have already reverted to the politically correct language of 1111), convince the public you are right. But don’t hide behind the political euphemism that the only reason we don’t behave like that is because of political correctness on the Left.

I think when you do make the argument you will find that the public in general don’t want a return to the political correctness of the dark ages. You might also find that if you are genuinely concerned about violence in classroom and playground, and not just playing jolly media games, that a very fertile ground of investigation would be the role of the media itself in influencing the attitudes of children to violence and to other people.

But maybe I am just too politically correct – should have been beaten when I was a child.

World turned upside down

10

A terrific article by Cynthia Boaz on “14 Propaganda Techniques Fox “News” Uses to Brainwash Americans“. Number 1 (and indeed the rest) will also seem very familiar in Australia and elsewhere.

” 1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment … it is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don’t think rationally. And when they can’t think rationally, they’ll believe anything.”

Australian TV has taken this one step further – to the fear of chaos, lurking just around every corner. Australians thought they lived in a quiet peaceful little backwater in an ordered society of extraordinarily law-abiding citizens? Think again.

Just as the word “illegal” is always attached to “immigrants”, and the word “tax” to carbon, so is the word “chaos” always attached to airports these days. A dust cloud, a storm, a grounded aeroplane, and the airports are plunged, it seems, into “chaos”, even when the reporter using the word chaos is doing so from an airport which is either almost empty or has some people forming orderly queues.

A lot of chaos about these days in TV narrativeland. A broken down car on a freeway can plunge our roads into chaos, as can a broken watermain turn a once quiet city chaotic. Chaos can erupt on a football field after a bad umpiring decision, in a car race, a bicycle race, a running race, a horse race. Three or four people outside a court can create chaos, shoppers at a sale. Chaos is never far from beach, schoolyard, parliament, mining when taxed, live animal trade when halted, irrigation when reduced, political protests, hospitals, country towns, child care. There can be chaos on a railway, on a footpath, at a concert, in a television studio.

The Opposition, particularly Tony Abbott himself, has latched on to this technique of predicted chaos. Chaos can emerge at any moment from unions, the young, unemployed, students, greenies, women, socialists, drug addicts, migrants – give any of them an inch and you will wake up in the morning to find your world turned upside down. Introduce a carbon tax, let migrants in, tax mining, stop animal cruelty, introduce conservation measures, bring in high speed broadband, improve hospitals, any and all decisions the government tries to make will bring chaos and ruin to our fragile right little tight little society. Indeed the government itself is in chaos (helped along, with a nudge, or two, by parliamentary tactics of the opposition) basically in coalition with the Greens (that chaos inducing party) and independents (like Windsor), unlike the Liberals who only ever form coalition with the Nationals and independents (like Fielding).

So you have to keep watching commercial television networks all the time for when that early warning siren sounds, and it will, alerting the population that if not the end of the world (which might reduce profits) then chaos itself has arrived. Stay tuned for advice on how to deal with it. But in addition you must always vote conservative, only a conservative government can hold back the chaos that threatens on every street corner. Never vote Labor, they are the party of chaos, must never govern. This is a one party democracy, or should be.

But while televisionland and conservativeland chaos seems a little hard to find as you conduct your daily lives, there is something else which is indeed unmentioned, lurking just around the corner. Chaotic weather systems made more chaotic and life threatening by climate change? What climate change?

Now, back to our reporter on Smith Street where a burst water pipe has brought chaos to this normally quiet neighbourhood.

Falling leaves drift by the window

2

The other day, on one of my many social visits to hospital, I came across a chap, on the hospital entrance path, using one of those leaf blowers. It was a scene made to be, begging to be, turned into a metaphor. And many sprang to mind: he was the good and faithful social democrat politician clearing the path for the poor and needy to enter the public hospital; he represented the shocking waste of energy in modern society; he was part of the loss of the natural world, the leaves of introduced deciduous trees being swept from the concrete; he was the forces of civilisation holding back the chaos that always threatens. All good metaphors, fine for another blog, but unworthy of the high standards of Watermelon.

For me he was Journalism with a capital J. He seemed to be not so much clearing the leaves as rearranging them into patterns, his penetrating stare was seeing into cracks and crevices, and spaces between paving stones and palings, as he turned the blast of fresh air onto stray leaves here and stray leaves there, making a pattern on one side, and then sweeping back to make a pattern on the other, and then back again to rearrange them into a new order.

This was the world of heroic journalism, of Woodward and Bernstein, and, well, Bernstein and Woodward. Investigative journalists peering into the dark corners of politics, blowing fresh air into smoke-filled back rooms, bringing patterns to our attention from what had seemed merely a few random political events as unconnected as leaves falling from a tree.

Then the improbable image of Woodward sweeping leaves (Carl Bernstein yes, Bob Woodward no) shattered before my eyes as I thought of modern journalists. Those bright-eyed young things, eyes on the eventual prize of “breakfast tv presenter”, happily attending Abbott media stunts; “interviewing” random pedestrians for their thoughts on climate change; thrusting microphones at people involved in court cases; salivating over the tears of parents of missing or dead children; running UFO stories seriously.

And I realised that the world of journalism had turned upside down. That modern journalists were no longer carrying intellectual leaf blowers to add to the sum of public knowledge, and refine the art of political discourse. Instead they now carry vacuum cleaners, which suck information out of the public mind, that extract knowledge and leave it in a dust-filled bag in the garbage, that leave the public less-informed than they were before a “story” is presented. That instead of creating patterns from apparently random events, they turn obvious patterns into disconnected moments so that the public can no longer see the connections. Fallen leaves mount up in drifts, clog drains, trip pedestrians, smother gardens. The fallen leaves from our politics clog up our parliament, damage good government, destroy the chance that elections can represent the will of the people.

Modern journalism sucks the life out of public discourse, and there seems no way to reverse the settings on their behaviour.

I miss the old journalists, when autumn leaves start to fall.

Queen Cate

15

It is a reflex response so strong that it could replace the ringing bell of Pavlov’s dogs in psychology textbooks without losing a fraction of meaning. A celebrity joins a public campaign in favour of something Rupert Murdoch is opposed to and the Murdoch hacks stream as one to their keyboards and churn out vicious attacks on said celebrity. Last one online is a rotten egg, or a sacked columnist.

Most recent of course Cate Blanchett, daring to support a carbon tax, when King Rupert denies there is any change in the planet at all since he was a twinkle in Keith Murdoch’s eye, and if there was, well, certainly nothing involving business doing anything differently at all to fix it will ever be permitted in Rupertworld.

Why the strong response to Our Cate? Well, celebrities are the only chance that those of us on the progressive, reality-based, side of politics have of counter-balancing to a small extent the crushing juggernaut that is Murdoch media. They could have asked me to front the campaign, happy to help, but, let’s face it, Cate has somewhat more starpower even than the proprietor of the famous Watermelon Blog, and she is considerably more photogenic (my own peak of photogenicity seems to have been in 1950 in the gravatar above, immediately after the picture was taken it plunged faster, much faster, than the loss of Arctic ice). So, Murdoch billions versus the lovely Cate is something more of an even fight than Murdoch billions versus anyone else – queen checkmates king. And King Rupert is no more interested in competition than any other supporter of capitalism red in tooth and claw.

Oh occasionally a celebrity turns out for Right Wing causes – Charlton Heston, Angry Anderson – but 97% of the celebrities whose celebrityhood comes from ability and intelligence and charm (not the fake celebrity that comes from the Murdoch media machine) are left wing. Which is to say no more than that they live in the real world, can assess the truth, understand that the Murdoch press doesn’t speak the truth. Can see that while the Emperor does have clothes, they are the robes of deceit.

And that knowledge, that good and brave and intelligent people like Cate Blanchett seem to hate what Murdoch stands for, makes the attacks even more vicious.

Any colour you like

2

Whenever people complain about advertising (especially on tv) the advertising industry will instantly respond with the proposition that advertising is just there to serve the community, provide information, give people choice, oh, and if you don’t like it, why don’t you go and live in North Korea, see how you like that.

Well, I certainly wouldn’t like that, but I just have this tiny niggling feeling that there is somewhere an intermediate step between being concerned about the advertising industry and the effect on our society and wanting to live in a totalitarian state. Let’s see if we can find it.

Once upon a time (yes, I know, I know, grumpy old man, but bear with me) advertising was indeed a service to the community. It not only let you know what was available but told you about the qualities of what was available (quite different to North Korea you see). Then you could decide, make a rational choice, between what was on offer from, say, this car company as compared to that car company, and work out which one had the qualities most relevant to your needs. Get it home and discover that, yes indeed, it was pretty much as you expected it to be.

But that isn’t what advertising agencies do any more. Instead their skills, techniques, special effects, psychological expertise, are all directed to ensuring that we can’t compare different automobiles, ice creams, shops, foods, televisions, political parties, clothing. That the realities of, say, performance, maintenance costs, safety, driveability, will be hidden behind glossy state of the art images. That after watching an advertisement for a new car you will be less informed than you were before. That faced with the reality of an actual car, after being influenced by the virtual reality of the glossy advert, you are going to be in for a series of more or less nasty shocks.

Didn’t there used to something called truth in advertising? Seems to have been misplaced somewhere between here and Pyongyang.

Don’t mention the weather

18

When I woke up this morning, determined to write something quick and angry about extreme weather events, it was to discover, great minds etc, that Bill McKibben had been similarly provoked, and had the advantage of time zones over me.

I don’t know what drove Bill over the edge. Perhaps it was the US media being more interested in getting a “revised” prophecy of the date of the “rapture” from that vicious old fool, not content with the damage already done to his weak-minded followers, Harold Camping, than to talking about the climate change already afflicting our planet.

For me it was this article that sent me hot foot to the keyboard. Where Steve Connor, “science editor” for the Independent recorded “It is estimated that this April alone there were something like 600 tornadoes in the US. Scientists are not sure why this year has been such a record tornado year but one suggestion is that there has been a particularly strong jetstream blowing over the North American continent” before concluding “There is no evidence so far that the record number of tornados have anything to do with climate change. However, some experts believe they may become more frequent”.

Maybe it wasn’t the hapless Connor though, I had been primed earlier by the usually excellent Ben Eltham who said “Flannery, for instance, showed admirable restraint last night on 7.30 as the ABC’s Chris Uhlmann asked a series of irrelevant questions about tropical cyclones.”

We (and by “We” I mean those of us in the reality-based world of science) have done the world a disservice I’m afraid. Oh with the best possible intentions, but you know what they say – the road to a 6 degree warmer world is paved with good intentions.

No, I am being a bit too kind there. What has actually happened is that we allowed ourselves to be sucked in by the climate change deniers. It was as if they had challenged Roger Federer to a tennis match and then said, at the last moment, “oh, of course we won’t be using rackets and balls, we are going to throw gum boots”.

You see every time in the last ten years there has been an extreme weather event, a record-breaking weather event, something so far out of the ordinary as to be noteworthy, newsworthy, so extreme as to kill many people, destroy towns and lives, the deniers have screamed “don’t you dare to try to blame that on global warming”. And we haven’t. Backed away muttering oh so politely (politeness reigns on this side of the looking glass world) “good heavens no, wouldn’t dream of it, no, no, can’t attribute individual events to global warming, oh my goodness gracious no, that would be very naive, going beyond the evidence, we just aren’t that kind of people.”

Well, true enough. No sorry, let me start again. Well, true. Was the town of Joplin, Missouri destroyed by global warming? Would there have been a tornado anyway? As strong a tornado, as devastating? Who knows. Not the question, never was the question. Sorry, just a moment, I can hear the chorus again “Don’t you try to make political capital out of people’s misery you bastard, typical extreme greenie”. I am supposed to take this as the final word, and once upon a time, in Kansas, I would have done so. But we are not in Kansas any more, time the wicked witch was flattened under a collapsed house.

We went you see from agreeing with the self-evident proposition that an individual event wasn’t caused by global warming to refusing to talk about extreme weather at all. “OK you guys” we said “we won’t talk about droughts and floods and storms. Don’t need to, the planet is slowly warming at a steady but slowish rate, sea levels likewise, ocean acidity as well, ice melting ditto. All we need to do is tell you that if things keep going the way they are (I mean you can all read graphs, right?) in 100 years time things could be very uncomfortable for us all”. There, that should do the trick.

In the mean time the deniers (remember Federer and gum boots) were busy doing exactly the reverse. Claiming that every cold day in Oklahoma was evidence against global warming, every warm period was just El Nino, oh and didn’t we know that the Chinese had sailed across the Arctic Ocean in 1421 and had a fireworks display at the North Pole. By agreeing not to mention the weather (“don’t mention the weather”), that is the manifestation of climate that actually affects the public on a day to day basis, we have made absolutely certain that the public will remain blissfully unaware, so many frogs in a pond, that the evidence of their eyes and other senses (including their common sense) is not to be believed. If the scientists won’t say that extreme record-breaking events are the result of global warming, and the deniers are saying they are not, then there is really no contest of ideas. Are we geting tornados and droughts and floods because of global warming? Course not, but in spite of what people like Barnaby Joyce (“look, it’s raining, we were told there would be droughts”) say, that was never the question. “Are we getting stronger, more damaging, longer lasting, more frequent extreme weather events that keep breaking records because of global warming?” “Yes of course we are, you some kind of idiot, what did you think?”

Until we start explaining to people that global warming is going to hit home, is hitting home already, right where they live, we have lost the battle. Lost indeed the war.

Well I mentioned the weather, but I think I might have got away with it.

The ragged trousered philanthropist

6

Because I am a philanthropist, in words if not finances, can I offer a couple of free suggestions to Julia Gillard and the Labor Party. I mean you are doing about as well as Gordon Brown just before the Cameron landslide, or John Howard before the Kevin Rudd one. Sorry, that was a bit mean-spirited – how about Malcolm Fraser before the Hawke deluge?

Anyway, suggestion one. Julia, call Bob Brown, apologise. Arrange to meet for dinner. He is a charming dinner companion you will get on well. Say that you recognise, now, that Greens are normal human beings who have jobs, families, and values very similar (I’m guessing, and we’ll come to that) to your own. That having, belatedly, read some Australian Labor Party history, you recognise, now, that in many ways the Greens represent the Labor Party of Chifley and Curtin, of Whitlam and Cairns. That the Labor party has lost what was once its progressive wing in the way that it once lost its regressive wing (the DLP) and is suffering for it. That you understand that while there are disagreements between Labor and the Greens in relation to the importance of environmental issues and one or two others, these are not insurmountable. That you would like therefore to see a formal coalition (joint party room, shared ministries), in government, between the two parties, in the way that the Liberals and Nationals, facing similar policy agreements and disagreements, have successfully managed for over half a century. That you realise that there will be objections within both parties, at elected and grass-roots levels, but that with goodwill this should be something that two social democratic parties should be able to overcome. The alternative being another long-lasting Liberal/National coalition government led by the most regressive members of that coalition and creating an Australia anathema to both Labor and Green parties. All elections are critical, but the next one is arguably the most critical ever seen for the future of this country and planet, and we no longer have the luxury of the two left-wing parties of Australian politics slagging each other off more than they do the real political enemy.

Right, that’s the structural thing out of the way, and it is a biggie.

Now, you yourself Julia. I know everyone has had a go at your style of public speaking (just between you and me I have been known to yell in despair at the TV – “no, don’t say it like that Julia, don’t say that” – the most recent example was when you responded to Malcolm Turnbull’s thoughtful interview on climate change as follows “Malcolm Turnbull told us the truth. He told us the truth that basically this plan won’t work. He told us the truth that it would blow the budget.” – that kind of repetition, and negativity, is what drives people like me to despair) but that isn’t much use without something positive to suggest. And telling you to change the style (I’m guessing) you have had since high school doesn’t get either of us very far. So here is a positive suggestion, and a bit more Labor history (in a very broad sense). According to WikiPresident Franklin Roosevelt first used “fireside chats” in 1929 during his first term as Governor of New York. He faced a conservative Republican legislature so during each legislative session he would occasionally address the citizens of New York directly. He appealed to them for help getting his agenda passed. Letters would pour in following each of these “chats,” which helped pressure legislators to pass measures Roosevelt had proposed. He began making the informal addresses as President on March 12, 1933, during the Great Depression“. These “informal” chats came to be called “fireside chats”, not sure why, partly I think because his audience were sitting around the fireside listening to the radio, partly because the illusion they presented was that Roosevelt himself was sitting by the fire in the White House, in a comfortable chair, talking personally, as to a hundred million friends, about the important issues he and they were concerned with (the Depression in general, and then the War).

Again turning to Wiki for an explanation of the success of these chats (Roosevelt would receive millions of letters in response to each one):
Rhetorical Manner
Sometimes beginning his talks with “Good evening, friends”, Roosevelt urged listeners to have faith in the banks and to support his New Deal measures. The “fireside chats” were considered enormously successful and attracted more listeners than the most popular radio shows during the “Golden Age of Radio.” Roosevelt continued his broadcasts into the 1940s, as Americans turned their attention to World War II. Roosevelt’s first fireside chat was March 12, 1933, which marked the beginning of a series of 30 radio broadcasts to the American people reassuring them the nation was going to recover and shared his hopes and plans for the country. The chats ranged from fifteen to forty-five minutes and eighty percent of the words used were in the one thousand most commonly used words in the English dictionary.
Where Roosevelt’s Simplicity and Clarity Come from?
When Roosevelt was doing his chats he wanted them to be simplistic and clear. He wanted to be clear enough for his audience to understand what he was saying because it was important to him. He came up with three techniques to make his chats clear and simple. First, he wanted easy to read and open language use. Second, he wanted to include many concrete examples and explanations into his text. Third, he wanted simple organization in his text.
How did he make his chats persuasive?
There were four tips that Roosevelt used to persuade his audience when he gave his chats. The first was he used the word “We” when he made claims. He wanted the audience to feel like they were a part of the chats. Second, he embedded his claims into objective statements. Third, he used a lot of adverbs and adjectives. Finally, he made his language go from soft to hard. Slowly draw his listeners in and hit them hard later on.


Memorise those tips Julia, make them a part of your being. I want you to start “fireside chats” to the nation. Literally, sit by a fire in the Lodge in a comfortable chair, having had a nice dinner, couple glasses red wine, and now a beautifully made fresh pot of coffee ready to pour your first cup. Just a single camera there, and you start talking through it (not to it as you usually do), forgetting it is there at all, to the people of Australia, to all your friends, as if they were sitting in the other comfortable chair with a cup of coffee. You speak softly and quietly and warmly, as you are just talking to your friend. And what do you talk about? Well, this is just as important as the ambience. You will talk about the “Why” of what you are doing. Not the “what” and the “how” and the “when” and the “how much” and how you are being blocked by the Opposition. There is no opposition in the room, just you and your friend.

Explain the “Why” of a Carbon Tax in relation to global warming, the why of plain packaging of cigarettes, the why of improving conditions for workers, the why of health reform, the why of mining resources taxes, the why of improving education, the why of saving the Murray and old growth forest, why infrastructure like the National Broadband Network is important, and so on. Let your own ideas, and those of your Green partners, flow out to explain clearly and simply to the people why these policies are important. In doing so you will, as Roosevelt intended, bypass the vicious spin of the Murdoch Press and the shock jocks and you will communicate directly to your friends the Australian people. And if they understand the why they will understand the reasons in a way that the dull recitations of what and how doesn’t do (this was the mistake Kevin made too). So you will bring them with you instead of letting them be alienated. And it will serve another purpose too – you will also start to consider more fully the why of existing policies, and some of those might be changed as a result (think refugees, think gay marriage, think free trade). And when they are changed to something more reflecting your social democrat ideals you will then in turn be able to let the public see the reason for the new policy, the “Why” behind your change of mind.

Oh you won’t win them all, in some cases the public will disagree with your “Why”.

But at the moment you aren’t winning any of them.

Feel free, adopt both ideas, quickly. No gratitude needed, say they were your ideas. I’ll keep shtum, just the warm glow of a job well done is enough for this philanthropist.

Or are they just the products of a fevered brow (nah, not so fevered today), or somewhat ragged trousers?

Put up your dukes

5

I know you have all forgotten the royal wedding (except for the 20 million friends, people with waaay too much time on their hands, of the Pippa’s bum facebook page) as indeed have I. The sight of an abbey full of the born-to-rule party at play, the sound of a wedding service which might have been thought out of date in medieval times, the hats, Elton John, all combined to create one of those events where my brain simply cannot cope with the sensory overload of irrational images and shuts down. It may, I suppose, re-emerge on a psychiatrist’s couch as a retrieved memory some time in the fuure, an explanation for some piece of odd behaviour, some uncharacteristic grumpiness, but for now it is safely locked away, buried deep.

So, no comments on that event from me. But I did want to note something that happened after the wedding, something that seems to have gone un-noticed, or, if not un-noticed, then simply accepted in a way that makes it even more disturbing. After the wedding the happy young couple instantly became, at the stroke of a royal pen, not just Mr and Mrs Windsor (or is it Wales?) but the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Now I will leave that with you for a moment, let it sink in, while I have a cup of coffee (“Three cups of coffee?” said a nurse young enough to be my great great granddaughter the other day “You drink three cups of coffee in the morning?” leaving me with a vague sense, not uncommon throughout my life, of having done something wrong but not being quite sure what it was).

Still there? Yes, “Duke and Duchess of Cambridge”. In the real world a junior helicopter pilot and a recent university graduate don’t get awards, titles, big jobs, promotions. In the real world people work hard to learn, start at the bottom, work up, gain experience, achieve something, achieve something else, be, with a bit of luck, recognised in some way for those achievements much later.

In Conservativeland merit isn’t something you want to encourage in a country. You might want to pause briefly again to consider the psychological and political reasons for that. No, the idea that someone is just declared, by reason of their DNA or DNA marriage certificate to be, for example, a Duke (or, for that matter, the head of a corporation, the head of a national broadcaster, a university, and so on) is just the way things are, the way the world works. It is what the monarchy symbolises, holds in place.

Which is why conservatives in other countries (like that oddly shaped large island, small continent, a long way from the mother country) love the monarchy so much, will fight to the death to keep it in place. As Paul Keating once said – “Even as Great Britain walked out on you [the Liberal Party of Australia] and joined the Common Market, you were still looking for your MBEs and your knighthoods, and all the rest of the regalia that comes with it. You would take Australia right back down the time tunnel to the cultural cringe where you have always come from.” And am I right in thinking that one of the first acts of the incoming conservative NZ government was to restore imperial honours?

So complain all you want about the cost of the wedding and the archaic ceremony and the lack of former Labor PMs (as well as Tony Blair), the real message from the wedding came with the unearned honours, and the not so subtle message that WE will decide who rules the roost in this society. Sorry, not “We the people”, have I been unclear?

Strawberry Fields

4

Let me take you down, ’cause I’m going to Strawberry Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Strawberry Fields forever.

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
It’s getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn’t matter much to me.

Lennon & McCartney

Ding dong bin Laden dead. Not dead. Dead. Gun fight. Unarmed. Wife human shield. Not human shield. Four helicopters. Two helicopters. One crashed. Two crashed. Million dollar mansion. Ordinary house. Multi-million dollar mansion. High wall. Ordinary wall for area. Intelligence from torture (sorry, “enhanced interrogation techniques”, don’t want to upset anyone). Not from torture. See the photo we’ll believe he’s dead. Unless it’s a fake photo. Like the other one. Quote from Martin Luther King. What a beauty. No, sorry, fake quote. War is over (Afghanistan of course, I forget the name of the country the other war was/is in. Anyone? Does it start with an “I”?). Not over, going on forever. Second in charge, and now king of A-Q, is x, no y, or is it z?

Confusion after a major event is inevitable, always was, as journalists seek information, try to get to the facts in situations where eyewitness accounts notoriously conflict. But this was something else. This was a cloud of misinformation. A willful invention of whatever seemed plausible, whatever fitted the preconceptions/ideology of the journalist/news outlet concerned.

We are now living, sadly, not so much in a post-modern world, but in a post-reality world. CP Scott, former editor of The Guardian said “Comment is free but facts are sacred” – other times, other truths. Were Scott living now he would be forced to conclude exactly the opposite. Facts have been set free, free as a bird, to settle where they will.

Obama, commenting on his refusal to release photos (a demand of the media) of the body, said that it wouldn’t settle anything in the minds of some. Absolutely true, and many of the “some” are in the media.

It would be bad enough if this bin Laden story was just a one off. It is, after all, a story of such implications that the media would, you would think, be under some obligation to get it right. To say nothing until they knew something. To make a list, check it twice. Sadly though pretty much every story you read exists in the same virtual reality. It began in the context of “He said, she said” “balanced” journalism. Every story, every fact, can be, must be, disputed. It continued through enthusiastic media support for conspiracy theories, and support for UFOs, ghosts, the paranormal, homeopathy, climate change denial.

We live in a world in which the media are no longer responsible for informing people but for disinforming them.

Disempowering them too.

We need to invent a new profession to replace the “Journalist”. Report the facts.

That’s it. “Reporters”.