I recently finished Brian McNair’s Introduction to Political Communication, and it was an ok read – very much an introduction to a topic I already had a fair knowledge of. It introduced a few new ideas and, mostly, a large number of specific cases that are useful/good to know. But one concept McNair mentioned is one that has angered me this past year, concerning how certain events are reported in the media.
I joined over 30,000 people in Brisbane and millions globally to call for action on the climate emergency that we are rapidly marching towards. Speeches I couldn’t quite hear over the huge crowds, signs, flags, and banners of all sorts, and a clear message to send. One world, one chance, one movement.
The Australian had a headline saying that there was havoc in the CBD. Pauline Hanson called protesters ‘serial pests’, and Lord Mayor of Brisbane (Adrian Schrinner) said they were ‘worse than the CFMEU’ and doubled down on his ‘extremist’ comment. Even friends sent me annoyed messages. That’s it everyone, they caught us, civil liberties are just too inconvenient a responsibility to have laying about.
We’ve all seen the apocalyptic images of Sao Paulo’s ashen skies and the extent to which record breaking fires have damaged the lungs of our earth – set ablaze, quite likely, by those empowered by the evil government of Jair Bolsonaro. This is indeed one of the greatest threats to human survival, with the Amazon giving approximately 20% of the world’s oxygen, but there is a side to this that many appear to be setting aside – again.
I will, if I have time, write an actual piece about it later this week, but I read something earlier today and had one of those realisations where you feel like an idiot for not picking up on it much earlier. Moral of the story: read, read a little more, and don’t forget to read. Another perspective, another idea – it all adds up, and you’ll never know everything. Bask in that ignorance and strive to learn more.
The idea of historical revisionism is something that is brought up a lot, by everyone, for many different reasons. When you hear the phrase ‘rewriting history’, it tends to conjure up murky and Orwellian imagery, a world where fact is replaced with a manufactured conception of the past. To the contrary, I would argue that historical revisionism should be encouraged – so long as it is done correctly.
As if anyone cared what her opinion was, Pauline Hanson has pitched in on the Uluru climbing debate. She doesn’t see the ‘cultural sensitivity’ seeing as people ‘have been climbing’ it for years. Reality check – yes, it has been a culturally sensitive issue all those years too, but finally Indigenous voices are being listened to. Just don’t climb Uluru – it’s that simple.
Can the media please stop asking Hanson what she thinks?
For Australians talking about ‘raiding Area 51’, we have a perfectly good US intelligence base near Alice Springs that could do with some dismantling.
We’ve all heard the saying: “If you don’t love it here, leave!” The irony of those kinds of statements though, usually disseminated online towards ‘leftists’ of various sorts (whether on cultural or economic concerns), is that the people who most often assert them are the ones with gripes over their country’s wellbeing. This inconsistency can reach comical standards at times, and also helps reveal other hypocrisies.
The Economist posted a video a couple of months ago discussing whether or not politicians lie. I didn’t agree with most of it, seeing as their conclusion was that something was only a lie if the person telling it had the intent and knowledge they were doing so. They instead try to palm certain things off – even Trump’s antics – as things like ‘exaggeration’, ‘untruths’ (isn’t that just synonymous with lies?), ‘nonsense’, or (quoting the academic prowess of a philosopher) ‘bullshit’. How trite.