Mood: accident prone
Topic: big media
Pictures: todays clips of stupidity, on our recycled (!) timber kitchen table, rescued from a Bronte council throwout.
Why are children appearing in the big media today on behalf of their posturing political parents? Both the children of Kevin Rudd Opposition Leader, and of Mark Scott managing director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation are pictured in the news today, both courtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Is this systemic child abuse? How in any way is this massive exposure of any benefit to those children, especially the under 18’s down to primary school age? What can those kids possibly have that’s probitive of the quality of their parents? Are the parents saying the political community can now treat them as fair game, enquire as to their school expulsions, genetic diseases, drug taking or whatever? I don’t think so. No its an entirely one sided first strike missile defence type of political propaganda. 'Look at my darling kids' but don’t you dare say ill of them, they are innocents above the muck of politicking. Well of course they are which is why they shouldn’t be in the newspaper in the first place. This kind of child propagandising is just plain wrong as it is widespread.
These were not incidental images. They were endorsed staged calculated attempts by their parents to leverage sympathy of them as regular good blokes. And it is patheticly misleading and deceptive for lack of real information value. No one needs a licence to have children. And children are programmed to be loyal and trusting of parents.
All it usually signifies is that the adult parent is desperate for help in the PR stakes. In Mark Scott’s case underlined by a glossy feature in The Weekend Australian Magazine, giving an entre to conflicted financial business and political interests: It’s all about breaking the ban on advertising on the ABC with the first step being online adverts. Pretty sleazy that, using one’s own children to advance professional career goals.
And then there is foreign affairs specialist Greg Sheridan quoted page 2 of the same newspaper “Sheridan wins Israel prize”. Trouble is how can any journalist hold themselves out as remotely objective when accepting prizes from one or other stakeholder in geopolitics? This is just another sleazy attempt at compromising the news and it doesn’t look like Sheridan will be politely declining it for professional and ethical reasons. It’s the equivalent of an industrial relations journalist accepting the ‘services to union collective bargaining’ prize of the ACTU, or ‘services to understanding the uranium mining and nuclear cycle prize’ from ANSTO. Lobby groups naturally want to ingratiate themselves but Sheridan’s lack of perspective in accepting the gift shows past and future bias in matters involving Israel.
Then there is the usual Tim Blair tragi comedy Saturday Opinion piece with his mock philosophical sophistry. (Spooky echo of my ‘wallow’ tag on Ruddy in his left hand column, just as I heard the saintly Mark Colvin on PM use the ‘gratuitous’ word from another of my headlines about Crikey.com.au applied to a Amanda Vanstone story last night).
Blair’s main contention today is an alleged unhealthy obsession of the Left with “sadness” and “disaster”. Funny how people concerned with human rights, social justice, and inequality would have such a focus in the real world. Blair probably doesn’t know about these places that say 5.5 billion out of 6 billion know all too well. Live long enough in middle class privilege that royalty of centuries past could not conceive of, add decades of wearing blinkers and hey presto we just airbrushed 75% of human experience. How to solve world poverty with a click of the fingers.
Like the proverbial 3 wise monkeys’ (or as I like to think of them, sinister Wizard of Oz flying monkeys) Blair thinks his narrow Ayn Rand view in a spiritual and economic enclave is the only true light. There is a grain of truth but a barrow full of lies in his TimBoy's simple thesis. Sure the Left and Greens feel a fleeting sense of vindication at the very real prospects of climate change cataclysm and war dead as defined by such as The Lancet.
But actually, and this is first hand experience personal and observed, far more suffer burnout, despair, and need the soothing revival of individual sustainability workshops as organised by John Seed and Ruth Rosenhek of the Rainforest Information Centre:
"In response to growing public concern about climate change, the Rainforest Information Centre is taking to the road to address the psychological and emotional issues surrounding global warming.": National climate change roadshow hits Northcoast | Alternative ...
But don’t stress over these demanding thoughts there Tim behind your rose tinted glasses. It must be comforting living in the shadow of Ayn Rand’s gospel porn that says altruism is really just a selfish attempt at moral triumphalism, such that unvarnished selfishness is really far more honest – like a big fat pay packet from News Ltd to spread psychological violence is ‘honest’? But who are you trying to convince? Yourself? Don’t you find that terribly unsatisfying? Indeed boring?