Misleading, subtle, or downright confusing language

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that the marriage equality discussion is duplicitous.
You might note that I, and others,  always strive to us the expression
MARRIAGE EQUALITY
rather than
Gay Marriage
or Same Sex Marriage.
There is quite a lot of philosophical differences that are contained in these terminologies
It might well be  added that those who oppose marriage equality, consistently and deliberately use the terminology Gay Marriage or slightly less controversially Same Sex Marriage .  Make no mistake, this is deliberate.
There is an insidious side to this, because what it is doing is appealing to homophobia.
No one, presumably objects to "equality" but people do object to Gay don't they?
Pay attention to who uses what terminology!

I was likewise aware that the so called  Islamic State...ISIS, was using the word "State" to give itself an authenticity that clearly it lacks.....but deeply desires.
It is not a State, by any reckoning of the International law. But it took the world a while to wake up that it should stop calling it "Islamic State"
The ever-heavy-handed PM of Australia insisted on referring to it as "A Death Cult". I am inclined to think that by so doing he gave it an authenticity that we could well have done without. He seems to have stopped doing it!
(Might I say I have "linked" A Abbott, above, in a way that also demonstrates how words are not neutral! Perhaps rather to make the point)
Most people don't get the import of Semiotics....the use of pictures, words and signs.  The average sociologist would suggest  it is a damn sight more important than we imagine. We believe what we read, see, and hear....sometimes in a most irrational way

The Simple A..B..C of the media

Like many/most people I have time shifted most of my media encounters. I listen to BBC radio at night, and catch up with ABC and SBS programs through iView and SBS On Demand. I can see all sorts of other thing on You Tube. I seldom say any more..."I have to be home by 8.30 to watch "Giggle and Hootch""   We almost always watch 'And live from New York....it's Saturday Night Live' the cutting edge , must watch satire, comedy, political/social commentary that is available online within an hour of it's being broadcast in NY at 11.35 p.m. each Saturday Night .

I am particularly struck by the BBC, and the depth of its quality radio...which goes back now over 40 years. They have simply kept everything...and continue so to do. [Today it is easier because of digital technology ]

I am struck by how good that is.

Of course the BBC has largely been able to be funded by the iniquitous "licence fee"... once present in this country, and there is no way it will ever be able to be reintroduced ( politically)  in Australia.

So there is now little or no radio drama, almost all comedy has disappeared or been destroyed; both commercial and ABC;...what a pity Mavis Bramson and the Naked Vicar Show have disappeared. I even imagine that there are those who would long to hear replays of Blue Hills!

So now we are facing, yet again, cuts to ABC funding. What concerns me about this is the loss of culture.  

Economic decisions seem little concerned with the preservation of culture..

They do seem concerned with limiting political criticism...some Liberals are convinced that the ABC is out to get them.  It is surely part of their Charter to critique the sitting government...and think Mr Bernardi at al are being just a little bit precious

Serious resistance

Have seriously resisted the temptation (sed libera nos a malo) to say the day of the printed page is over but I am increasingly coming to that opinion.
The latest brick to fall is the newspaper. While some of us have been agonising about whether or not we should subscribe to online newspapers, I noticed the other day when in my local library that they were suggesting that members should access papers on the web through the library system. ( You can do this here)
I lay in bed this morning and read the Australian and the Advertiser (actually discovered I had written a letter to the paper!! ) on my tablet... substantially the same as here.
This gets more and more exciting. When I went to the desktop to see how this worked this afternoon I discovered I was on a page (accessed through a South Australian Library!!!) called Journaux du Monde Entier.
Seems to me this means "Every Journal/Newspaper in the world!!!"
Now one of my children (K) and I usually only communicate in French these days (!!!) but I was deeply shocked to find that Mitcham Council was inviting me so to do as well!!!
Through this page I can access  all or in part The Australian, the Advertiser, the Trader, The Age,  Australian Literary Review, Daily Mail, Vancouver Sun, New York Post....and so it goes on
And you wonder why I think the last bastion has fallen! 
As a news lover I feel pretty excited by this! 
I can manage it. And I can do it in bed!!!

What sort of law?

Ever ready to tap into the mood of the moment Media Mike apparently agrees with a 'proposal' of Police Commissioner Hyde to not only confiscate the vehicle of hoon drivers, but to "crush them" (here)

This will no doubt have some, if not a lot of, appeal in some corners of society, but is this sort of vindictive action what our justice system is about?

Would we, for example, countenance the destruction of someone's house because a crime happened to have been committed in it?

Sounds more like the world of the fascist dictator than the liberal democracy we are supposed to embrace.

We have for many years accepted that illegal proceeds might be confiscated and used to recompense victims of crime, why could these cars not be impounded and sold?

There is clearly a mind game going on here, I for one do not want to be party to vindictive retribution which serves no constructive purpose other than to appeal a vicious streak in the populace at large.

Our leaders should do better than this.

Off the mark

After having been told yesterday that the local Hills and Valley Messenger had done an expose on a new Brethren compound in our area, and it went on for page after page; I suppoose I should have been more careful when a reporter rang up.

Her guise was to question about the census "Why did I think that Anglican figures had gone down?" and "Yes, the census said that Buddhist and Hindu figures had gone up"

Well these things are more complex than they seem. I suggested.

Buddhists and Hindus are coming off a low base.

We (Anglicans) are trying but we are getting older and the census doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know!

I even said "I'm a bit cautious about sayiung too much because it's not straight forward"
"That's OK," she proffered, "I'm a Catholic"
Didn't actually make me feel any better.
Having been burnt by the media a couple of years ago (it was TV admittedly) I hung the phone up thinking that I had probably said too much and should have said nothing.
We shall wait and see what comes of it.

Petulant

It would be petulant to question why the air crash in Yogoyakarta yesterday has dominated the airwaves.
While it is serious, it is also a modest disaster in the scheme of things.
It gets excessive media attention because there were Australians on board, but mainly because there was video of the awful events.
Not so events with recent around the world...34 killed in a train crash in Harare, 8 killed in a helicopter crash in Austria.
I was also personbally bowled over by the PM's obvious intention to act with great haste to "bring them home". Not so others who don't take his fancy like David Hicks, who has become his politcial football

Trial by media

The recent media frenzy spurred on by one of the Corby camp insinuating in a paid interview that all is not quite as straight forward as the recent book, or the endless television coverage would have us believe, has rapidly descended into an unseemly debacle.
Not particularly because (as one might expect) accusations are made and then the family defends itself, but because Channel 7 aired the original interview and then Channel 9 dutifully responded with the "other side"
But the other side seemed more intent on showing that the original report was sensationalist reporting and shoddy journalism than in getting to the bottom of the matter. That is they were reporting about their rival and not about the case.
Pleeeeeease!!!!
If that ain't pots calling kettle black then I don't know what is.
Now I happen to believe that Ms Corby is probably guilty, my sister-in-law read the book and believes she is probably innocent. As we batted this around over the Christmas hols and as we once or twice drove past Kerobokan jail recently, it was apparent to anyone that there is no way of solving this intractable dilemma. Someone must be lying. But lie detectors will not settle this; they are notoriously unreliable. [It's interesting for example that Channel 9 spent a good deal of its report debunking the lie detectors, which had been a a substantial basis of 7's report...and then without batting an eyelid offered to submit Mercedes Corby ...where do they get these names.. to the same lie detector test that their former ally Jodi Power had undertaken]
What ever else is happening here, I don't believe that that the TV stations are doing more than trying to improve their ratings.
They are not interested in truth, they are interested in stirring the pot. And guilty or not the Corby's, or anyone else, should be cautious about thinking that media coverage is likely tohelp the cause.