A Cursory Glance... has moved!

After almost two years it's time for a change here at A Cursory Glance... So, I bought me some webspace, got the removalists in and moved into http://acursoryglance.net I would be most grateful if you would join me over there!

As our way of saying thank you for your loyal support, ACG article #50 is now online at the new site. Well, to be honest, it's not really to say thank you, I just couldn't be bothered uploading the piece to both sites. Check out the new site though - it's like, swanky or something.

You can also become a 'fan' of A Cursory Glance... over at Facebook or follow us on twitter. Or you can do both - that would be super awesome...

One week at a time...

Once upon a time it was possible for professional athletes to ply their trade without having to deal with the stress of the modern media. It’s hard to imagine the ancient Olympians facing public scrutiny about their personal lives, for example. But nowadays, with the rise of the global media and a collective devotion to celebrity culture, being a professional athlete entails far more than simply being good at the sport in question. Just ask Michael Clark.

As attention on professional athletes has increased, so has an awareness that athletes need to be savvy when it comes to interacting with and participating in the media. Rather than allowing athletes to speak their minds, great care is now taken to promote good sportsmanship and maintain the reputation of the game in question. While a fight may well break out during an AFL match, for example, it is highly unlikely that the confrontation will continue off the ground, such is the desire to uphold the reputation of the game.

To this end sportsmen and –women are taught skills that will help them act appropriately when interacting with the media. For example, they are taught to be humble and not big-note themselves; they are taught to have respect for their opposition and for the game’s officials; and they are taught to take responsibility for their off-field actions.

While all this might sound fairly reasonable the reality is that it makes the whole process rather dull and predictable for the public. In his address at the conclusion of last year’s AFL grand final Geelong coach Mark ‘Bomber’ Thompson said the following;

‘Firstly to the St. Kilda footy club, footy sucks sometimes and you guys have had a fantastic year. You’ve done so much right and you’re one of the hardest teams to play against’.

An undoubtedly noble gesture, but also a rather predicable and unoriginal one. If only he had said something along these lines;

‘Firstly to the St. Kilda footy club, you only lost two games for the season and you finished two games clear on top of the ladder. You also outscored us in three quarters of today’s match and yet you still managed to lose the game. Good effort.’

Sure, it wouldn’t have made Mr. Thompson the most popular man in footy but at least he would have been the most original.

But more than making the whole process extremely predictable it would seem that the regulation of media interaction in the sporting world has reduced such interaction to a series of clichés.

An example of this can be seen when an AFL player is asked to assess his team’s finals chances. Rather than answering the question honestly the player will almost certainly revert to one of the great sporting clichés – ‘we’re just taking it one week at a time.’

Similarly, after a match-winning performance a player might well be asked to comment on his or her contribution. Rather than taking the opportunity to provide an accurate account of proceedings, the modern sportsperson will often reply ‘it was a great team effort’.

If the same player was on the losing side he might well be asked to explain why it was that his team lost. In this situation it is unlikely that he would call the opposition a pack of cheats, even if he had wanted to. The preferred response seems to be something along the lines of ‘we had our chances but let them slip away.’

There seems to be a cliché for every situation in sport and it’s not just the players that are getting in on the action. Sports commentators also seem to revel in language that is saturated with repetition and recurrence. Cricket commentators seem to be quite partial to the phrase ‘good line and length’, for example, while AFL commentators will often mention a courageous player’s ability to put his ‘body on the line’.

The final word today goes to The Australian columnist Chip Le Grand and his brilliant piece about clichés, jargon and the AFL. Hopefully someday I can write like this but until then I’ll just keep giving it 110% and taking it one week at a time...

The language of prejudice...

Critiquing those who peddle tabloid journalism is kind of like using barrel-bound aquatic vertebrates for target practice. That said, it's also a lot of fun and has the added bonus of making one feel like one's journalism training is not going to waste.

Depending on your daily newspaper of choice you might or might not have heard about the case of Sudanese refugee Liep Gony. On February 17 Supreme Court judge Elizabeth Curtain overturned a ruling she had made in December, deciding to release the names of Gony's killers, Clinton Rintoull and Dylan Sabatino.
The following day The Age ran the story several pages from the front of the paper, while the Herald Sun, in all its sensationalist glory, deemed the story worthy of the front page.

It would seem that the editorial staff at the Herald Sun write headlines like Year 12 students are taught to write exam responses. That is, 'have a clear idea of the "buzzwords" that the examiners are looking for and ensure that you work them in wherever possible'. In the case of the Herald Sun, examiners are substituted for dedicated readers who seem to appreciate the frequent use of decidedly emotive words such as 'hero', 'horror', 'evil' and 'miracle. In the case of the February 18 edition of the Herald Sun it was decided that 'FACES OF EVIL' would be an appropriate headline for the Liep Gony story.

Now don't make the mistake of thinking that I find the actions of Gony's killers anything less than abhorrent. But, again, I was under the distinct impression that a news journalist's job was to inform the public of recent happenings so as to facilitate a considered decision on the public's behalf. I would like to think that people are smart enough to realise that bashing and ultimately killing someone, not least of all due to their skin colour, doesn't exactly constitute exemplary behaviour.

And while we're on the issue of skin colour let's turn out attention to the "FACES OF EVIL" story as it spilled to pages four and five. While the word 'fuck' was censored four times across the two pages, the word 'nigger' somehow made it through the Herald Sun's censorship department not once, but seven times.

Whether 'the N-word' should have been censored or not is a separate issue but by deciding to censor 'fuck' and not 'nigger', a rather loaded value judgment has been made. Are we to believe that a common expletive, used frequently in everyday speech, has the potential to cause greater offense than a term that arguably epitomizes an ongoing history of racial vilification and intolerance?

But it would seem that the Herald Sun is not alone in it's decisions regarding censorship. The same reasoning was evidently applied over at The Age with the following being an extract from the story run in The Age.

'Before he left home armed with a metal pole to bash and kill Sudanese teenage Liep Gony, Clinton Rintoull spray painted "f--- da niggas" on the wall of his rented Noble Park house.'

Again, one could argue that the word 'nigger' should not be censored as the newspaper in question is merely providing an objective report of what was said and written by Gony's killers. But, by the same token, shouldn't the word 'fuck' also be left in an unedited form as it too is an accurate representation of what was said by the youths in question?

In leaving this issue behind somewhat prematurely, it is to the wisdom of the wonderful Tim Minchin that I once again turn. His undeniably clever song 'Prejudice' - formally known as 'Taboo' - deals with the power of language when it comes to issues of skin colour and racial intolerance. Five minutes of your time s'il vous plaît...?

Only the best...

In the world of five-star hotels the serving of breakfast seems to be inextricably linked with the serving of breakfast television. Until a few weeks ago our news-tainment provider of choice was Channel Seven's Sunrise, hosted by dynamic duo Kochie and Mel. Nowadays, at the behest of "the man", we fill our restaurant with the sounds of Karl Stefanovic and Lisa Wilkinson of Channel Nine's Today. According to the powers that be within our reputable establishment, Nine's breakfast offering is "better" than Seven's. It isn't exactly clear what "better" means in this context but I'm willing to hazard a few guesses.

Perhaps the celebrity gossip on Today is "better" than the gossip featured on Sunrise. Perhaps the advertising spots on Today are of far greater quality than those seen on Sunrise. Or maybe it's Today's ability to sensationalise recent news stories better than Sunrise that makes it the pick of the breakfast viewing.

On yesterday morning's edition of Today the team ran a story about the recent stabbing death of 12 year old Brisbane boy Elliot Fletcher. The story began with several parents discussing the apparent increase in violence in Australian schools before cutting to host Lisa Wilkinson reading through a list of incidents that demonstrated such an increase. As if Today's angle on this story wasn't clear enough already, they concluded the story by "interviewing" Norm Hart of the Queensland Association of State School Principals.

As a journalism student I have been taught that interviews should consist largely of "open" questions rather than questions which lead the interviewee to a specific answer or force a simple "yes" or "no" answer. In the case of the story in question, something like the following might have been appropriate;

"What does the recent stabbing death of Elliot Fletcher tell us about safety in our schools?"

But no. Apparently that line of questioning is a little too boring for Ms. Wilkinson who decided to go with something a little different;

"Should parents be worried as they send their kids off to school this morning?"

To Mr Hart's credit he participated in the interview as well as could be expected given that he need not have been there at all. I mean, why would you bother inviting someone to give their expert opinion on an issue if, when concluding the interview, you are going to completely disregard everything that they've said thus far?

"Understandably a lot of parents (are) not feeling that's the case today but we do thank you very much for your time this morning".

Sure, you could probably argue that Lisa Wilkinson isn't technically a journalist in her role as co-host of Today but if you are presenting news items and interviewing relevant authority figures related to said items, then surely some minimum standards of journalistic integrity must apply? You know, like presenting information in an rational and objective way rather than trying to sensationalise important issues.
Let's keep things in perspective here - a 12 year old boy getting stabbed to death while at school is truly horrific and of real concern to parents and teachers alike but that doesn't mean that kids around the country are suddenly unsafe at school. There are a lot of kids going to a lot of schools on a lot of days of the year, I hardly think a couple of isolated incidents of school yard violence are cause to keep the kids at home.

But it's all about the kids. The mainstream media loves nothing more than a "kids are at risk" story but most of the time such stories are dependant on deliberate scaremongering in order to provoke emotional responses from concerned parents. That's not to say that the issues at hand aren't important, they should just be dealt with rationally and in a considered fashion.

Speaking of fashion, most people know of Miley "Hannah Montana" Cyrus but far fewer would be aware of her younger sister, Noah. Nor should they be because Noah is a little girl of 10 years old - not that you would know it from her choice of attire.

In October of last year Miley's younger sister "made headlines" when she donned a "dominatrix-inspired" costume for Halloween celebrations and in the last couple months there have been rumours circulating of a lingerie line being released by junior Cyrus and her friend Emily Grace Reaves. Thankfully such rumours appear to be false and the clothing company in question, Ooh! La! La! Couture, seems to make tutus with tanktops rather than girls' lingerie.

Noah Cyrus is only one example of an apparent shift toward the sexualisation of young girls and social commentators like Mia Freedman have written extensively on this issue. To a significant percentage of the community, young girls dressing and acting as if they were far older results in the corruption of childhood and the premature loss of innocence. "They are growing up too fast", the older generations often remark, with advertising, the media and the internet often copping the blame.
Regardless of one's own thoughts on this issue, it's hard to deny that it is an issue that a lot of people feel very strongly about. While the solution to the problem isn't as easy as banning the sale of lingerie for young girls, for example, it's clear that parents have an important role to play. If you are concerned about your little girl growing up too fast then it's probably not a good idea to let them watch Beyonce film clips at six years old.
The mainstream media has an important role to play as well. Rather than the aforementioned scaremongering that the commercial networks love to fill their "current affairs" and breakfast shows with, there should be a greater focus on programs that facilitate meaningful discussion about serious issues. The ABC's Q & A is a perfect example of such a program and it makes for brilliant viewing.
The weekly show features a panel of expert guests who discuss topical issues as directed by the audience and moderated by one of Australia's greatest interviewers, Tony Jones. Of course he isn't "Australia's best interviewer" because that mantle belongs to Tracy Grimshaw of Nine's A Current Affair. Step aside Andrew Denton, stop tryin' Kerry O'Brien, Ms. Grimshaw has you both covered...

Call me un-Australian but...

Call me un-Australian but I just can't seem to get excited about this whole Australia Day thing. Maybe it's the cringe-worthy expressions of patriotism that "Straya Day" seems to evoke in people or maybe it's the fact that we have a public holiday to celebrate the might of 18th century British colonialism.

For those that need a little reminder, January 26th 1788 was the day that the First Fleet - under the command of Captain Arthur Phillip - landed at Sydney Cove and claimed New South Wales for king and country. The Fleet was sent by King George III in order to establish a new penal colony after things took a turn for the worse in North America.

But of course Australia was already inhabited by the time Captain Phillip et al. rocked up on our shores. Conservative estimates place the number of Indigenous Australians at 300,000 at the time of the First Fleet. By 1901 this number had dropped to around 90,000 due, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, to “new diseases, repressive and often brutal treatment, dispossession and social and cultural disruption and disintegration.” Add to that the monstrosity that resulted in the “Stolen Generations” and you are looking at some pretty questionable treatment of our fellow human beings.

While it’s probably unreasonably for us modern-day Australians to be held responsible for the actions of our ancestors, doesn’t the concept of Australia Day, at best, exclude native land owners from our nationhood and, at worst, celebrate the brutal invasion of an occupied land?
Despite K-Rudd’s much publicised apology to the “Stolen Generations” in February of 2008, it’s clear that there is still much to be done to repair the damage done in the past. As white Australians it must surely be our responsibility to learn from history and treat our claims to this land with a sense of humility.

Unless of course you subscribe to the view that “We Grew Here, You Flew Here" is justification enough for racial vilification and violence. Take this status update from one of my Facebook “friends”, for example;

“(I’m) so happy da indians r gettin bashed dnt come here be we dnt want u........stealin our jobs and shit and wear fukin deodorant u fukin ferels!!!”

I’d like to think that this sort of sentiment is fairly rare but the recent spate of racially motivated violence - as mentioned by my "friend" - would seem to suggest otherwise. Not to mention the fact that the subtly-titled anti-immigration Facebook group “Fuck Off, We’re Full” managed to accrue 65,000 members before it was eventually shut down.

To adhere to this xenophobic nonsense is to make a rather questionable claim of ownership, namely that Australia belongs to white Australians and no-one else. Is it really that easy to forget that white Australians are nothing more than immigrants as well? Sure, we might have "owned" this country since 1788 but if 222 years of occupation is enough justification to say who comes and who goes, what privileges does 40,000 years of occupation entitle you to? Not much apparently.

On a similar but somewhat lighter note, it was with great delight that I watched Channel Nine's 6pm news bulletin this evening. The broadcast's opening story was about Van Thanh Rudd, the nephew of our Prime Minister, and, according to reporter Tony Jones, "our new serial pest". Mr. Rudd and a fellow member of the Revolutionary Socialist Party found themselves on the receiving end of a fine for "riotous behaviour" after dressing up in Ku Klux Klan outfits for an anti-racism protest.

Of course Channel Nine completely missed the ironic symbolism used by the pair, labeling the protest "insensitive" and declaring the "infamous" Van Thanh Rudd to be an "embarrassment" to his "famous" uncle. And here I was thinking that journalism was about presenting information as objectively as possible so that the audience can make up their own mind. Silly me...

Living the iLife...

Catching the train home from work at around 11pm is always an experience. If it isn't boozed up teens sharing stories of their sexual conquests it's drug fuelled maniacs trying to start fights with ticket inspectors. Tonight was a little less extreme, but no less fascinating.

As I boarded the 10:41pm Hurstbridge train I became aware of a younger gentleman sitting a couple of metres away from me. As we started our slow journey into the 'burbs this gentleman started making eye contact with people as they boarded the train. After a few stations he struck up conversation with one particularly attractive young female who happened to be fiddling with her mobile phone; "How much do you pay for that per month?"

A rather unusual choice of pick-up line, I thought to myself, as I waited to see how quickly she could deflect his advances. To her credit though, she played along, answering his questions generously for a few moments before deciding it necessary to make a phone call.
After the lady had left the train, receiving a friendly smile and a wave in the process, the charismatic gentleman set about searching for another person to befriend. Turning to a female backpacker who had sat beside him he indicated to her large pack and asked "Have you got a dead body in there?"
Whether or not this woman didn't speak English, didn't understand the joke or just didn't want to talk to strange men late at night on public transport, I don't know. Either way she uttered some non-commital response before turning to face the other way.
As the backpacker left the train and Mr. Charisma began to scan the carriage again, I thought I had it figured it out - he was just some lonely dude trying to make the most of a boring train ride home by chatting up attractive girls, albeit unsuccessfully.

As we pulled out of one of the many stations between the city and home Mr. Charisma turned to a rather portly gentleman and, pointing to his dreadlocks asked; "How long did they take to grow?"
Well there goes the attractive girls idea. But then again, maybe he was just a lonely dude who felt the need for some human contact on his way home. Following discussions about the demise of the Glaswegian shipping industry and the merits of international postage insurance the topic of conversation turned to familiar territory - "Are you on pre-paid?"

That's when it clicked. The lonely gentleman in the corner wasn't lonely at all - he was a phone salesman looking to makes some commission in his downtime. Sure enough, when Mr. Dreadlocks asked what his inquisitor did for a job;

"I'm a door-to-door salesman, I sell mobile phone contracts for Optus. I'm not getting enough sales during the day so I thought I'd get on the trains and try to sell some phones that way."

It made sense. I mean, why else would someone ask a complete stranger how long they had left on their phone contract, out of the blue? It also explained the sales and marketing book that he was reading while he wasn't busy accosting tired commuters.

Don't get me wrong - I don't really care that he was trying to sell his wares at 11:30pm to people who just wanted to get home. After all, it's easy enough to say "no thanks, I'm not interested". However, one of his final comments to Mr. Dreadlocks got me thinking. Namely, "you can never have enough iPhones can you?"
Now I must confess a certain desire to join the iPhone flock but the last couple days have had me questioning the merits of such desires.

In an attempt to escape the hustle and bustle of our busy lives, the lady-friend and I headed up to her family's property in Tolmie, a town 30 kilometres north-east of Mansfield. The property is home to a converted machinery shed that is effectively a house without many of the modern conveniences - electricity, running water and mobile phone coverage, to name but a few.
Sitting down on one of the couches that adorn the shed I faced a crisis of sorts. What is there to do when there is no electricity?

When your whole life is dependant on the constant use of electricity, taking it away does funny things to you. Take this blog entry for example. It's 3:00am, pitch dark outside and without electricity I would be relying on candles to create enough light in order to write these thoughts on a piece of paper. I take it for granted that I can sit here on my couch as late as I like and that the lights, my laptop and the internet will be at my fingertips as long as I need them.
It all sounds a little dumb - of course we need electricity to power our 21st century lifestyles - but a weekend of tank water, longdrops, citronella coils and no Facebook was enough to give me a bit of a wake-up call.
Having said that, the feeling of being completely disconnected from the outside world is an extremely liberating one. I was able to break out of my busy routine and just sit back, smell the fresh country air and appreciate the simpler things in life. Like the fact that daylight is fairly important when you don't have electric lights all through your house. I was certainly less inclined to wake at noon than I am when I'm at home, that's for sure.

So, what does this have to do with iPhones and the selling thereof? I'm not quite sure to be honest. Maybe it's the idea that the iPhone - and the rampant consumption and consumerism that it represents - is somehow at odds with a simple and naturally fulfilling lifestyle. Or maybe someone just needs to invent an iPhone with solar panels on it. The best of both worlds, and all that...

The Christmas spirit...

Christmas is a confusing time for us non-believers. It's hard to know whether or not to boycott the usual celebrations in protest of the continued influence of ancient religions or rejoice in the fact that the day has lost the greater proportion of its aforementioned influence.
Everyone knows the story of Christmas - some dude called Yeshua was supposedly born in Bethlehem on December 25, the son of God, a virgin mother and a father who allowed his wife to get knocked up by some mysterious entity known as the Holy Spirit. The new born was hailed as the Messiah, the individual prophesied in the Jewish Pentateuch as being responsible for reunifying the tribes of Israel and leading a peaceful world into the "Messianic Age".

Even if we allow the generous assumption that an individual named Jesus actually existed at the time he was supposed to, it is almost certain that such an individual was not actually born on December 25. According to Luke 2:8-12 there were "shepherds living out in the fields" on the day of Jesus' birth but, being in the Northern hemisphere, Palestine is well into winter by December 25 and well out of shepherding season. It is therefore more likely that Jesus' birth, if it even occurred, did so somewhere between March and November. Some Christians believe that he was born on May 14 6BC, others believe he was born in September 5BC and some others believe he was born on August 21 7BC.
For those that find this argument about Jesus' date of birth a little weak, it might be worth pointing out that such reasoning has been appropriated from an article on the accurately-titled website allaboutjesus.org.

Jesus' birthday was not initially set aside as a day worthy of celebration and when it eventually was, it took until the 4th century AD for the powers-that-be to decide that December 25 would be the day in question. But don't make the mistake of thinking that December 25 is just any old day, picked at random.

Much like the tradition known as Easter, Christmas day just happens to coincide with one of the most important days of the solar calendar. While the winter solstice occurs on December 21 or December 22 in the Northern hemisphere these days, 2000 years ago it fell on December 25 and was believed to be the day of the sun's rebirth. It sort of makes sense, in a cute kind of uneducated way - light and darkness are locked in a year-round battle for supremacy and at certain times of the year one of them is stronger than the other. At the summer solstice light is far stronger than darkness and the day is significantly longer than the night but at the winter solstice the tables are turned and the majority of the 24 hour cycle known as the "day" is bathed in darkness.
Indeed many of the "pagan" religions featured such a myth, with a sun god in the role of light.

So what do sun gods have to do with Christmas? Well, it is generally accepted that authorities within the Church appropriated December 25 for Christ's "birthday" in order to make it easier for "pagans" to ditch their primitive ways and jump on the Christian bandwagon. How very thoughtful of them.

Given that I'm in no hurry to board any sort of religious vehicle, how can I make sense of the unavoidable beast that is Christmas? Well perhaps I can embrace the secular meaning of Christmas and rejoice in the giving and receiving of presents.

It's no secret that the "primary gifting period" is the most lucrative time of year for the retail sector. It's also no secret that people are more than happy to contribute to the consumerist machine that kicks into overdrive in the month of December. Sure, the feeling of buying someone a present that they like is quite satisfying, and receiving presents is always good, but feeling obliged to buy presents for anyone remotely important to you seems like a rather unnecessary burden to bear. One of my Facebook "friends" put it most eloquently when he quipped; "most people on Facebook seem more excited about finishing their Christmas shopping than Christmas itself".

And then there's Santa - an overweight, ageing gentleman with abundant facial hair and a penchant for little children. The jolly red and white fellow that we know today has evolved from and been influenced by several historical entities including a 4th century Greek bishop called Saint Nicholas of Myra, the Norse god Odin, the mythical English gentleman Father Christmas and the drawings of the German-American cartoonist Thomas Nast.
Setting aside the assumption that it's ok to lie to children about the existence of fictional characters, do we really want to set children up to expect gifts every year? Do we really want to promote the idea that Christmas is all about receiving presents?

As I am wont to do, I shall close today by defaulting to the wisdom of Tim Minchin and in particular his song "White Wine in the Sun".

Yes I have all of the usual objections to consumerism,
The commercialisation of an ancient religion.
And the westernisation of a dead Palestinian,
Press-ganged into selling Playstations and beer.
But I still really like it.

I'll be seeing my Dad,
My brother and sisters, my gran and my Mum.
They'll be drinking white wine in the sun.
I'll be seeing my Dad,
My sisters and brother, my gran and my Mum.
They'll be drinking white wine in the sun

I wouldn't normally paste such greats slabs of text into an article but I reckon this song sums it up perfectly.
You don't need to believe in Jesus or spend lots of money to have an enjoyable festive season. Christmas should be about spending time with friends and family, celebrating the year that has passed and the year that's to come.

So, from the team here at A Cursory Glance..., thanks for reading, and Merry Christmas...