Mainstream media to play a growing role as Trump media comes online

In the old days, in other countries, when the military decided to take over they first went to the TV station so that they could control messaging. In China today – even in the heart of our own century – the government decided to play by different rules and to set up alternative public spaces to harbour discussion, and so new social media companies came into existence. Now, Donald Trump has just appointed a new CEO for his new socmed company, a former Republican Congressman named Devin Nunes.

Since many people were disgusted by Trump’s encouragement of the January Congress riots, and since many on the other side will follow Trump anywhere he leads, what you’re going to have in the United States is an increasingly polarised public sphere where the mainstream media – which will include people with stronger stomachs than most, who’ll be paid to take out accounts on Trump’s platform so they can monitor developments and trends there – will play a growing role in the community.

Because of this there’ll be times when Trump might disenfranchise journalists who don’t follow his line, disabling their accounts, removing posts, or even provoking pile-ons. As a result many journalists will use anonymous accounts in order to monitor debate, and so that they can get information without being blocked or censured. Anonymity is a pressing matter in Australia, where the government is developing laws that’ll make it mandatory for social media companies to divulge the identities and contact details of people whose remarks are deemed by a court to be offensive and defamatory. If they don’t do so, the government says, they themselves will be liable in any court case brought as a result of actionable comments made on their platforms.

It’s important for the Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government to carefully word such laws as it’s clear that anonymity is going to remain, in many countries, an important resource for the legitimate participation of various actors in several spheres of endeavour. You need to balance the requirements of many different parties if you’re not going to cause harm in one way by achieving justice in another way. I look forward to what eventuates, and no doubt the mainstream media will, as usual, report in a balanced way on such developments. At least, in Australia, we don’t have rogue politicians seeking to establish a personal public domain where their messages can go unchallenged. We’re lucky to have the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, which supplies reliable information for all citizens (and even for some people living overseas).

Melbourne protest rally might be turning point for civility in social media

In the middle of this month a protest rally on account of new laws the Labor government wanted to enact regarding Covid and the health response caused hundreds of people to flock to the streets. Visible among them was a cart with a gallows and three nooses. Missiles were hurled, resulting in injuries. The language on some of the placards was intemperate.

On social media prominent left-wing commentators themselves protested the rally but ignored how they, themselves, often use intemperate language in order to achieve their rhetorical goals. Flaming and ridicule are part of the arsenal of such individuals – who often hide behind anonymity online – and this had caused the prime minister to vociferate publicly against the tenor of debate. Earlier in the month he’d even voiced ideas about making the big tech companies more accountable for what was published on their platforms.

Australia had already moved in this direction, the High Court finding that media companies are responsible for the comments people leave on their Facebook pages. Morrison (the PM) was saying what many – people like me, who sit in the centre – think: that online conversations need to be more responsive to the real world and that the freewheeling tone of social media is becoming more and more toxic.

On TV, the leader of the Opposition criticised the PM for criticising state governments that had chosen to restrict people’s freedom. Morrison utterly condemned calls for violence, he said, but understood that many people are frustrated. Australians have done their bit and governments, he averred, needed to do the same.

This was seen by many as condoning extremism. The first journalist I heard voicing an opinion about Morrison’s words (it happened to be the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Andrew Probyn) expressed a degree of puzzlement. I think this is understandable. We’re puzzled, all of us, but we encourage the type of extreme expressions embodied in the gallows and the nooses. We’re part of the problem, and perhaps this current debate will serve as a turning point. Along with whatever measures the federal government attempts to introduce – though it’s arguable whether they’ll have time to do so before the next federal election – this conversation can be our saving grace.

Marketplace needs more flexibility in pricing tools

You see it all the time, people putting “$0” (which the application turns into “FREE”) for an item for which, the description shows by words, a price must be paid. I find this all the time, so it’s commonplace. The other day I put up a selection of literary fiction priced at $0 but that I wanted to sell for $5 each. I did the same thing for a group of history books as well.

I’d been getting rid of a lot of books. Initially I’d put up pictures of individual books, but found that the response for this method is very limited. Hardly anyone was asking a question. When I put up a number of history books (I think there were 13 in the set) for $50 I got a sudden influx of queries, so evidently I’d hit a nerve. A man came over to my place on two occasions and bought 50 books. Another man got me to mail seven books to his house out near Liverpool. A third man I met at Parramatta to which suburb I’d travelled on the ferry. 

The group photo was magical, so I tried to reproduce the effect by putting up a photo showing novels by Martin Amis, Thomas Pynchon, and Tom Wolfe, among others. The price was $0 and the description had more details, including the fact that they were on sale (and not being given away) but the response this time was surprising in another way. “Is it free,” messaged Enes. “No $5 per book, as per description.” “Why don’t u put as $5 then.” Another person wrote to me, “Hi, is this free?” I mistakenly tapped the prompted button to say “Yes, it’s available” and Monica asked again: “But is it free..?” 

I changed the price attached to the photo to “$5” but I’d felt the pain these people experienced to learn that something they coveted, due to an inspiration rooted deep inside their being, had been denied them. Doubly painful because there might be a reason for their not being able to afford the minuscule $5 necessary to purchase one of my cheap books. 

When Josh came over to buy some of the novels the other day, dressed in hi-vis and wearing boots, he didn’t look like a reader of literary fiction. But I felt his passion when we were browsing. Or, at least, when he was browsing and I was standing by ready to let him know if a book was available or not. He hopefully picked a novel by Gabriel Garcia Marquez off a shelf and I hesitated before allowing him to take it. I suggested he should read Haruki Murakami and he took two of the Japanese author’s novels. He asked me what I was reading and I told him it was a Nancy Mitford novel and that this author’d been my father’s favourite.

This personal link to books means that the process for buying them should be better crafted by Facebook. It shouldn’t be enough to let people put “$0” as the price when this is not, in fact, the case. It’s not the seller’s fault that people are disappointed. It’s the intermediary’s fault that the online tools are not flexible enough to account for all situations. If the only way for me to get people interested in my books is to put up photos of groups of books, then the pricing tools should allow me to say “3 for $10 or $5 each” or something similar. Buyers would benefit from being able to do their shopping without the shock of disappointment, and sellers would be able to be honest at the same time as they achieve their sales goals.

Macron dummy spit has Australian media bewildered

I finally saw a news story – it took weeks of flailing about with the same old line – about the submarine bust-up (the federal Australian government cancelled a $90-billion deal for French-designed subs) with some wider relevance. It was by Chris Uhlmann. 

Uhlmann located the French president’s unhappiness in the context of geopolitical ambitions “to leverage his nation’s colonial footprint in New Caledonia and French Polynesia to deal France into the great game of the 21st century; the strategic struggle for the Indo-Pacific”. What some on social media have poo-poohed – Australia’s legacy commitment to French security embodied in WWI and WWII Antipodean military success – is closer to home but few have alluded to it, possibly on account of French sensibilities. 

We’re being very kind to Macron and his people, but if China ever got into a war with the United States it’s highly likely that Russia would join in on her side, so it’s in Macron’s interest to see a strong Australia. Napoleon’s much-repeated quip about English “shopkeepers” seems suddenly ironic.

Facebook should offer Marketplace booster vouchers to loyal users

I had a nice conversation with a guy named Ash I met yesterday who bought four black chairs I’d wanted to sell. We were talking as we carried the chairs out of the garage to his grey sedan. He said he wished Fb Mktplace’d been around when he was a student and I agreed that you can find amazing bargains. 

The chairs had come to me when I bought a table for the front room. The table and four chairs cost $50 and I sold the chairs for $30. The guy who sold them to me was moving to Melbourne and wanted to empty out his apartment so he also gave me four outdoor chairs for free, which I listed for $20. Ash said he’d think about buying these as well. The table is made of steel and glass and suits the entryway to my house – it’s on the tiles just inside the front door – offering a modern, contemporary aspect to visitors. It also gives me a place to put things.

Like books I’ve been selling that I want to show to buyers who come into the house. I listed books the other day in a way I’d not contemplated before. In the past I’d just put up one book at a time with a price and title. This time I shot a photo of just over a dozen history books on a shelf and offered them all for $50 (or $5 each). As a result I got over ten responses and in the same day sold 23 books to two different buyers (one left some behind and promised to come back later to pick them up). In the past this kind of reaction would have been even more remarkable. But community interest stopped after a couple of days.

With the chairs I’d had them up for about a week or ten days. But the slackening off in engagement for the books makes me think of another feature of the site, where they give you the opportunity to boost your listing by paying a fee. They also contact you for some listings after they’ve been up for a week or so, asking if you want to renew the listing. Normally I decline this offer but I think in future I’ll take them up on it. With this feature you only get a limited number of renewals (though I haven’t seen what happens when you reach the limit) and that’s why I normally don’t accept these messages that come through driven by an AI.

Facebook relies on artificial intelligence. I like Fb Mktplace because, unlike eBay, they don’t charge you for listing. But they probably might offer to boost listed items at no charge. If I put up a book to sell for $5 I don’t want to pay $2.50 to boost it. Facebook anyway has enough money and doesn’t really need my $2.50 to be profitable. 

So far I’ve sold hundreds of dollars’ worth of goods online using this interface and will continue to use it in future. I particularly want to get rid of books as I already have 13 bookcases and they’re mostly all full. If I want to buy more physical books – and this is more than likely, as I’m an inveterate reader – I’ll need free space to store them. In the past I’ve bought many books that’ve just sat unread for years waiting for inclination to strike so I take them off the shelf to spend time with, and recently I’ve been scooping up old books that catch my attention. Fb Mktplace helps me to rationalise my library but my loyalty – I’d used the platform since 2007 and spend a good deal of time on it each day – should be better rewarded. Maybe the company could use its algorithms to convert time spent on the site into booster vouchers that can be reclaimed when a seller wants to promote a listing.

Details of Assange case are starting to disappear

I was reminded of Julian Assange last night when another segment came on the nightly news detailing the progress of the extradition case currently being heard in the UK. Assange is still in prison and his future remains up in the air. I wonder how he is faring and I remember again the first time I saw Julian, in 2009, when I was at my computer and I saw a video of a young man enthusiastically making an announcement at a podium. Assange quickly became a global phenomenon and the waters soon became muddy.

I’ve long been a supporter of Julian though I don’t think he’s ever been a journalist. Because he was publishing documents it’s possible to confuse categories but his relationship with the media has always been contradictory and rebarbative. The number of journalists this publisher has pissed off is very long and I have no doubt he’ll continue to try to use the media for his own purposes as time passes.

‘Don’t extradite Assange’ read this sign (see above). ‘Don’t extradite our rights,’ it goes on, conflating the destiny of the sign’s subject and that of the person holding it. I can feel the anger and I share a part of it myself. I just don’t know what the US has against Assange, and hope that, at the very least, that part of justice that is the public airing of positions can be allowed, with the help of the appropriate authorities, to take effect. 

The above photo shows the beginning of the forgetting. It was necessary for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to put up a shot showing a newspaper headline in order to orient viewers. Perhaps without such an establishing shot many would be puzzled over the identity of this person with the strange name.

Assange will continue to polarise and to unite. The following photo shows a few of the people who were outside on the street in London for the protest against the UK authorities. People are angry that Julian is still locked up and in a way they have a right to be angry. I sometimes feel puzzled by the state of affairs but I want to know more. 

'China Tonight' hits the spot

I hadn’t watched this program before, feeling some measure of resentment on account of Stan Grant’s constant shifting within the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). It seemed as though every time I looked at the primary digital channel he was hosting a different show. ‘Matter of Fact’, another late-night show, was cancelled after 10 months and then Grant moved to Doha to work with Al Jazeera (which I have problems with). 

Now he’s back though it remains to be seen how long the China program will last for. I wonder why Grant is such a butterfly? Is the problem with him or with the ABC? To make ‘China Tonight’ he teams up with Yvonne Yong, who started working at the national broadcaster in 2016 and has also worked with Sky News in London.

Grant worked in China for many years and Yong speaks Mandarin so the two hosts have a good pedigree and what I saw is promising. This type of program is especially important due to the lack of news coming out of China on account of the Communist Party’s iron-like grip on the flow of information. This has gone so far as to spawn new social media platforms for Chinese people, which are rigorous in their obedience to the Party. There is no such thing as a free media in China so Grant and Yong provide an unusual window onto its public sphere. As I’ve written in the past, much of what passes for public debate happens on social media, which can become quite boisterous despite the Party’s hunger for total control.

In the show of 18 October I saw some evidence of a peculiarly Chinese form of cancel culture. Whereas in the West when someone is cancelled it’s at the instigation of random actors who build momentum for action, in China it’s the Party that orders and carries out the cancellation, even leading to actors in movies having their names removed from credits. It’s Orwellian, and I’ve got Grant and Yong to thank for supplying light in a space characterised by darkness.

The Age selectively turns off replies to tweets

Having posted yesterday on a tweet involving Gina Reinhart that had replies turned off I’ve scouted out some tweets from the same source with the reply function still on. This seems to be the default position.

The following tweets had replies enabled. First, one about supermarkets and the competition offered by retailer Aldi.

Next is a tweet about a local Australian Netflix employee.

Next is a women’s health story. Another noncontentious one.

Finally there’s one about vaccines for Covid – potentially contentious but still getting the liberal treatment.

It seems that consumer affairs, health, and industrial relations are less contentious than climate change. The newspaper's editors are obviously concerned about the High Court decision that makes media companies liable for comments on posts they put up. That case resulted from comments left on a Facebook post.

The Age has turned off comments for Twitter posts

I discovered this on the morning of 7 October when I wanted to reply to a post editors had put up about Gina Reinhart saying that humans weren’t affecting the climate. See image below.

This is fairly alarming though I saw the same morning (it was about 8.30am) that the Guardian and the New York Times hadn’t followed suit. It’s alarming for the same reason that it’s alarming when politicians block people on Twitter. This is because dialogue is the raison d’etre of social media and, for a journalist or politician, obstructing it must be viewed with a feeling of disquiet.

Though you can understand why some might take this step. When a journalist or a politician criticises social media on account of the tone of debate social media responds by doubling down, so you see two sides ranked like opposing football teams, each one eager to prove itself in the contest. Some people keep away. Others keep silent and watch from the sidelines.

Eleven o’clock pressers provide distraction

Many people are truly suffering because they’re doing the right thing. For me, lockdown hasn’t changed much as I mostly sit on the couch reading books – which is what I did before the restrictions were put in place, and it’s what I’ll be doing after they’re relaxed – so not seeing people isn’t much of a hardship. But for many it is very difficult. I can understand that people need company to make them feel whole, to take their thoughts away from unpleasant resorts, or to distance them from other urgent things like paying bills that pile up even as income is cut off. 

No wonder the daily eleven o’clock press conferences the state premiers hold are so welcome for people sitting at home with little to do. One friend put up an image of the TV tuned to the news and commented as though it were, for him, an occasion to break out the popcorn. It’s the signal event that marks the weekly rhythm, the bass note that gives the day its form, the place people go to in order to feel, for a few minutes, that they’re in control of their lives, and not some bizarre new illness come out of Wuhan like a new horseman of the Apocalypse.

“Poor Johnny lacklustre lock down,” commented one friend, “no play dates, just the existential crisis of corona virus and media saturation, here is hoping this chapter of our lives can end soon.” This shows that some people have come to resent the eleven o’clock presser. The federal government has been the main loser from the notoriety of the presser, its approval rating sliding alarmingly even as people stock up on intellectual comfort food while seated on the couch. My friend John will no doubt be applauding the opinion poll result, but I can’t help but feel sorry for the government, its stars hung so high until recently, and nothing that the Opposition did seemed able to lay a finger on it. Now, it lies like a Coke can crumpled in the gutter, ready for binning. For all of its sinning.

Nikki Savva to write a column for Nine Newspapers

In 2016 Savva published a book about Tony Abbott and the small coterie of insiders who helped him to govern. In it, she talks about Abbott’s problems. I wrote at the time:

One of the main ones was that all decisions seemed to emanate from a small group of select people in the leader's office, including his chief-of-staff. The type of collegial consultation that members of Parliament are apparently used to in a Westminster democracy were thrown out the door. A tiny clique was doing everything to control the message, but when the leader's popularity failed to turn around people outside that group turned on the leader and replaced him just like that.

That chief-of-staff, Peta Credlin, now writes a column for The Australian, where Savva used to run her words. Savva also used to work for Nine Chairman Peter Costello, so the current move is as cosy as Abbott’s counsellors were.

Savva is best known to the general population for her appearances on the ABC’s Sunday chat show, ‘Insiders’, which gets talked about at length on social media. One thing Savva didn’t talk about in her book was the one-term government we’ve seen so much of in recent years in Australia. As I wrote at the time of her book’s appearance:

But this phenomenon of one-term governments is something that the commentariat will have to one day really take a close, hard look at. So far noone has really made the attempt. I think it has something to do with the new public sphere in the age of social media. But a lot of people would despise me for even suggesting something like this.

It'd be very interesting if Savva could turn her attention to such things as these because so far the quantity of discussion about the shiftiness of politics in this country hasn’t percolated through the community to any significant degree. People are aware that something’s changed, but they are not all saying the same thing. Awareness is limited to responses to journalists and politicians who castigate the broader community when debate turns ugly. The common people revel in the icy sobriquets thrown out by the wounded.

YouTube and the problem of veracity in the news

Just this morning I finished a conversation that had started the day before. It was about an allegation that children in the Democratic Republic of Congo were being used for mining cobalt, a metal used in the manufacture of batteries. Obviously such a resource would these days be worth a lot of money, and with some evidence – from one video that had been loaded to YouTube – that Chinese companies were involved, I took interest. 

The statistic that had been bandied about by one person was 40,000. In other words there were – allegedly, mind you – 40,000 children according to UNICEF (the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund) in an unsourced clip that started to infect the conversation I was having with two people overseas who might be expected – living as they do in developed countries – to be outraged by a fact of this nature. If it were established unquestionably to be true it would be a human rights violation of the first order. 

So why had no-one declared it publicly to the world? One “documentary” which had ostensibly been put up by Sky News (one man was confused about nomenclature because he’s unused to the media industry – with YouTube you get an odd assortment of real and unreal, or reliable and bogus, but the platform doesn’t tell you which is which) contained inconclusive evidence. The footage just didn’t seem accurate. A 4-year-old girl being used to sort through rocks? In other parts of this and other clips the soil was just being loaded into sandbags. The Sky News clip also showed a mine shaft with holes dug into the sides to allow people to descend into the bowels of the earth. Evocative footage – but was it real? – in other videos mining was done in open-cut fashion, a hole in the earth being occupied by workers putting ore into containers. And in the Sky News clip the children sounded like they were speaking Portuguese – instead of French.

All suspicious, but the two men who’d decided that I was a good candidate for well-intentioned indoctrination had by this time turned to sarcasm, a favoured method people use when they are unable to get other types of persuasion to convince you of whatever cackhanded idea they’ve got in their heads. I told one of the men who’d suggested – being a journalist – I should make my own story:

I'll buy a ticket to DRC tomorrow and pay $20000 to make a story in a dangerous country where there's no rule of law and where the virus is doing how much damage? Anyway too old for that sort of thing. I'll wait until someone younger and better resourced makes a credible story.

A credible story would be one that would get the global news industry motivated to fix a problem that – being so outrageous and manifestly unjust (40,000 children?) – engaged the world. If the Guardian or the New York Times were able to get a team of reporters and a photographer to Africa and make one story that verified that even 100 children were being used to mine cobalt. If the Sydney Morning Herald were to syndicate such a story on its website for subscribers such as myself to read. If a hashtag were to start up that promoted this single, reliable story instead of a few random mouth-breathers rigid with indignation at me – not the exploiters of said alleged child miners – for daring to disbelieve what they were privileged and – hear the heavenly choirs! – chosen to share with their grateful followers.

But no, not one story. Just a United Nations allegation and a random number (40,000!) picked out of the air by some functionary in order to shock the comfortable Western middle class into feeling guilty about using a mobile phone to message family and friends. You can see how potentially irresistible such a story would be to millions of social media users. Everyone in the world who uses a mobile phone – billions of people – could collectively suck in a mouthful of air, immediately killing all wildlife. The combined exhalation of human-produced CO2 – not produced by those wretched child miners, mind you! – could fuel the growth a trillion righteous saplings. 

The tweets of course didn’t stop even after I’d stopped talking on Twitter, with a Canadian with an Indian name triumphantly posting a link to a story from the UN’s website detailing the hideous crime. 

It was time to stop. Time to put this baby to bed. The misinformation industry is legion. Even politics is infected by the disease. What the above shows is not a crime being perpetrated against children in Africa. We’re dealing with a Wild West of global proportions, where any bad actor or any fool can use completely fabricated and false information to achieve diverse ends. We saw it in the 2016 US presidential election where thousands of dedicated Russian trolls manufactured stories designed to bring about a planned result. The media is not just under attack from thieves who purloin stories and repurpose them, publishing the rewritten article on a new web page alongside their own chosen ads. It’s being eroded by the internet itself. What people once thought of as a liberating influence is turning out to be a prison for the gullible.

A challenge for culture warriors is keeping the community engaged

American broadcaster NBC has said it won’t screen the Golden Globes Awards for a while because of underrepresentation of minorities in the voting panel. This comes on the back of revelations that the number of people watching the Oscars had halved in the last year. Just as Netflix had started to capture a quantity of gongs commensurate with its reach, people had started to abandon awards nights, and even traditional allies had turned sour.

This reflects a wider problem with awards of all kinds. I’ve written before elsewhere about how, in literature, there’s a too-small pool of talent choosing who wins prizes. Everyone knows everyone else and no-one’s honest so the same people keep getting accolades. We need to make sure the pool of talent used is as wide as possible, but we should be careful not to be complacent and just award prizes to the products that tick all the right ideological boxes but that are otherwise ordinary.

When Elon Musk came out with his “Aspergers” revelation we saw the community respond mostly with positive comments. Some people were not happy but most people said nice things about the billionaire, and whatever you might think about moneybags like Musk taking credit for being a little different the episode showed us how important identity is for the way that people value cultural products. 

If Musk is anything, he’s part of popular culture. If Andy Warhol were alive the artist would make a screenprint of Musk’s face for use on T-shirts. Responses from RW culture warriors to the NBC story, however, show that a backlash has already started – even before the project has fully worked itself out. Many people are unhappy with the “woke” factory that parts of the industry have become. This path is still unrolling itself along time’s bright axis so it’s too early, now, to give a definitive answer based on evidence, but I predict that the two sides will continue to bicker online until someone sets up a “Just Art” award committee somewhere that has as its overt focus the ignoring of ideology as a criterion for valuing such things as books or movies. 

“The Purelys” might be given each year to TV shows that are good despite the use of a wide range of gender-identifying types from many ethnic backgrounds, but who will be on the panel of judges? A random cohort of Twitter users, chosen on the basis of their visibility on the Netflix hashtag, perhaps. Or else a committee of university academics, following the Nobel’s methodology. Who gets to choose what is “good” and what is merely pedestrian? Do we allocate value on the basis of dollars alone, or do we wait, like patient children, until posterity tells us what is worth caring about?

Prime minister set the tone for coverage of Prince Philip’s passing

Early on Saturday the news channels were full of the big story of the day, but it wasn’t until Scott Morrison took to the podium in Sydney to give his address to the nation – and to its sovereign head, the Queen – that the tone was set. Newscasters had been tiptoeing around the evident failures of the prince’s life and, especially in the light of recent scandals in Canberra, his frank and robust manner. I sensed that for many of the TV presenters the issue of how to deal with Prince Philip’s vagrant tongue – he was well known for making casual and inappropriate remarks – was testing their equipoise.

The front held, however, but when Morrison took the line that Philip was staunch in supporting the Queen, more analysis became unnecessary. Pictures of the prince playing with children whose marriages would eventually fall apart showed on the TV screen, filling up the interstices between things. On Facebook friends who wouldn’t normally comment positively on the royal family gave their best wishes on the occasion. 

A pattern was being set but the old-school manner of Philip is not what’s needed, now, at a time when the world is assuredly and finally coming to grips with past mistakes. Not surprisingly, Morrison made no mention of his predecessor Tony Abbott’s knighting the prince – a final flame-out of the old guard before it was completely extinguished by the catcalls of the Left – but took refuge in the words of the old national anthem: “Long may she reign over us, God save the Queen.” By repeating these words, Morrison took a middle line between poetry and tradition, and struck a nice balance on the international stage.

In London the ABC had two reporters on the ground, making crosses at different times (see above, outside Buckingham Palace). Floral wreaths being left by locals despite a sign asking that this not be done. The household put out a request that donations should be, instead, made to charities.

The media really comes into its own on occasions such as this. As does the PM. Morrison reliably avoided tears while speaking to the cameras, the microphones set in front of him at Kirribilli in front of his residence on the harbour, and many would have been thinking of the elapsed period of a month or so marking the time since Philip had been admitted to hospital for a pre-existing heart condition. It takes a long time for anyone to die, if they die in their beds. 

Not like princes of old. “Duke remembered as champion of environmental causes,” went the strapline on ABC News channel. “Prince Philip’s Duke of Edinburgh Award a lasting legacy.” But it was strange – considering what this man was really known for – that nothing at all was said about his faux-pas, his indiscretions, his gaffes. We remove a tangible mechanism for change when we censor ourselves at the time of someone’s passing. This silence surrounding Philip’s failings speaks of our own cowardice, an unwillingness – when we, too, pass away – for the truth to be spoken. Are we so guilty in our minds?

Social media authentication regime would be a face too steep to climb

The Sydney Morning Herald reported three days ago that a report had been tabled in federal Parliament regarding safety and domestic violence, in which there was a suggestion it 

called for users to be required to present 100 points of identification – which could include a driver’s licence, birth certificate, Medicare card, or passport – in order to open or maintain an existing social media account with companies such as Facebook, Instagram or Twitter.

At about the same time, a federal minister announced that she used an anonymous account to conduct some discussions with the community. What might’ve surprised the government – which did not, it must be remembered, make any policy announcement in response to the committee’s report – was the reaction of that respected (but never respectful) community. 

It was, of course, utterly offended. Not that the community is ever short on expressions of hatred aimed at the government. It seems that the outrage mill that runs 24 hours a day is always switching its allegiances, taking up for a few hours one issue or another in its endless cycle of bonding and othering, a relentless attempt to satisfy our collective vanity. 

But let’s think about this briefly in the cold light of day. It’s Easter Monday, after all, and we’re probably all sick and tired of talking with family and might need a break to draw us back to the real world of work and politics, the world away from photos of pets and appeals for sympathy on account of a chocolate overload.

If the government is having a hard time getting vaccinations into people’s arms, and has (we’re told) fallen short of its goal by a wide margin, how much more complex to make each and every person who uses each and every social media platform – submit genuine IDs at a government-run office. And how much more unlikely that Service NSW (for example) or Centrelink would be able to gauge the authenticity of the documents thus tendered for scrutiny by one bleary-eyed functionary or another.

Even if you did get all the correct documents put before the censor and a message sent via an official channel to Twitter’s head office in California, as soon as you’d gotten the routine up and running there would be a news story about a fraud. A woman assaulted by a former partner who’d used subterfuge to get hold of her residential address, a late-night murder perhaps (in the worst case) carried out by an old lover with an axe to grind and with an anonymous account that the government had (incorrectly) said was really a school lteacher.

And what of anonymous accounts? What of the federal minister? Wouldn’t she be able to operate anonymously if she wanted to, given that opening and operating that account would require the use of ID? Why shouldn’t a prominent person who finds the rough-and-tumble of Twitter a bit hard to take – even on the best days – opt for a less bruising method to engage with the demos? If ID were required, surely you’d still be able to have an anonymous account?

The scale of the operation is what’s missing from accounts like that published by the SMH. When the government opened up its purse at the beginning of Covid’s remake of the public sphere, all you had to do was go to Centrelink and report the fact that you were out of work. The money came directly thereafter into your bank account – registered with the authorities for just such emergencies. There was no scrutinising. There were not delays. You weren’t asked to sign a statutory declaration stating that you’d lost your driver’s licence. You didn’t have to go to the post office and apply for a passport.

A passport? Takes two weeks to get a new one if you have all the necessary documents on hand. But say that you have to go to Births, Deaths and Marriages and ask for a new birth certificate? What then? More delay? Meanwhile, in your absence, Twitter continues to spew out a tone of rebarbative bile each and every second, a flow making a mountain of unwatched – except to a few – messaging. A rugged butte made of aggression and spite. A headland of reheated verbiage that quotes TS Eliot and Camus and Orwell at a more than alarming rate. A cornucopia of derivative cliché. A cascade of bumptious kitsch.

Hindu nationalist violence in Sydney

This post is similar in scope to one I put up five weeks ago about the farmers’ protests in India. Not all news is local. In the post you’re reading, however, there’s a strong local angle.

I began to look at this series of events on the same day that the Quad – a meeting of the leaders of Australia, India, Japan and the US – started to operate publicly. News of Hindu nationalist violence in Sydney appeared in my socials.

The Sikh community had been in the news. Not long before it announced a new private school would open in the city’s northwest.  This Sydney Morning Herald story contained details of the institution – designed to foster tomorrow’s Sikh leaders – in Rouse Hill. The story said:

It will teach students from kindergarten to year 12, and will have boarding facilities, sporting fields, a pre-school and a Sikh temple. It will cost an estimated $200 million, funded by members of the Sikh community.

Punjabi farmers had been visible in the public sphere in India because they’d been protesting a new agricultural regime. The government had used measures to silence criticism of its new laws, sometimes, as a deterrent, going so far as to put protesters in jail if they had a high profile. 

In Sydney, Greens Senator David Shoebridge was remarking in Parliament on the activities of far-right Hindu extremists.  

Shoebridge was referring to an incident in which a group of four young Sikh men were attacked after leaving a restaurant at night on February 28. Their car was surrounded by approximately a dozen assailants — whom the victims identified as Indians — and smashed with baseball bats, hammers, and even an axe. One victim identified at least one of the attackers as a participant in the allegedly RSS-BJP sponsored car rally from two weeks earlier.

It wasn’t an isolated incident, as another story reported.  

Amar Singh, President of Turbans 4 Australia, a Sikh charity organisation, says the Sikh community have never had “issues” with their Hindu compatriots in Australia. But when the Indian government, led by Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), began stigmatising protesting Indian farmers as part of Sikh separatist plot, relations between the two religious groups made a dramatic turn for the worse.

Last month Singh answered a call from an unlisted number on his cell phone - which would turn out to be a threat against his life. 

“Modi is our god,” said the Indian accented caller. “If you don’t shut up, we will teach you a lesson. We will tie you up and burn you to death.”

The Guardian has got onto the story, publishing this on Friday.  I suspect that Prime Minister Morrison will not remonstrate with Narendra Modi on account of the Sydney violence. It’ll be far down on his list of priorities. But just as Scott Morrison is criticising the CCP on account of its anti-democratic policies being exercised in Hong Kong, the Australian PM should talk to Modi about groups that, in India, benefit from government support. 

The holy grail was always due recompense for use of News Corp content

It’s been 12 years – this 6 April – that the media giant’s Robert Thomson declared in an interview:

"Google encourages promiscuity -- and shamelessly so -- and therefore a significant proportion of their users don't necessarily associate that content with the creator.

"It's certainly true that readers have been socialised – wrongly I believe – that much content should be free."

It was a declaration of war for which the peace has just been announced.  

Under the new three-year agreement, Facebook will pay for news articles from publications such as The Australian, The Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun. Sky News Australia has also signed an agreement with Facebook.

Thomson’s negative animus with regard to Google had converted itself, over the years, into a motion by media outlets in Australia that turned into laws drafted and put to Parliament for debate. At the last minute, Google capitulated and began to sign agreements with media companies. Facebook refused, and historically blocked users from posting news articles to its website. Then the government changed some aspects of the laws and Facebook unblocked the news.

Now this.

The “free” bit is still true – most readers of news won’t pay for it. But this is changing. For some the alignment of the interests of the dreaded Murdoch media and IT giants such as Google and Facebook will seem disturbing. A new bogeyman to revile and slam in a thousand new acerbic tweets flung like refuse out of life’s virtual cage. But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and smaller media companies will also benefit from the new regime.

But note the sunset clause. Such accord will be contingent upon both perceived return and on public opinion. In a way it’s still up to users what kind of dispensation exists in the public sphere, from an economic standpoint at least. If you think that IT behemoths should pay for the privilege of allowing you to share what you like on social media, then get vocal. And forget about your personal brand of politics. 

More is a stake than whether your favourite political party is elected to office. News Corp’s typically sustained activism over a large number of years – something that it specialised in as it works in various public spheres to get change made – has, in the present case, turned out to be a blessing for all news makers. Even a website as progressive as Crikey – which is run by a company named Private Media – can benefit measurably from Murdoch’s intransigence. No doubt its journalists would never have thought they’d see the day that they might be able to praise the feisty and conservative nonagenarian patriarch.

Keeping the bastards honest – Rudd and his crusades

There was something different about Kevin Rudd from the beginning. I remember being at an election night party in 2007 when Rudd led the Labor Party to victory. We all stood out on the balcony of a cute suburban home in Marrickville – veges on the boarder and chooks on the grass – and talked about social media and petrol prices. Rudd’d got our attention with his “greatest moral challenge” address to the National Climate Summit that year. 

But once in power, in 2010 Rudd postponed the introduction of an emissions trading scheme.  It was a stunning backflip that served – at one stroke – to erode the Labor Party leader’s credibility. It signalled a temporary pause on Rudd’s brand of politics, though Bill Shorten flirted with Rudd’s inimitable tendency to engage in virtue signalling. Bill’s EV policy in 2019 had something of Rudd’s messianic zeal about it but it, too, was not a winner and the electorate failed to embrace him. 

I think that part of the reason they did so is because of Rudd’s abiding awfulness. Not only was he a spineless coward – the electorate mused – but he was also a bully, verbally lashing out at subordinates in the most craven manner. From the front: smooth and deliberate. Behind the scenes: a chaos of unreconciled aggressions.

Anthony Albanese is shaping up to be a different kind of leader. Unlike Shorten with his ambitious EV policy – reducing to 105g/km the entire fleet of light vehicles (which would’ve required a total shift to pure-electric EVs for new car purchases) – Albanese is playing a more moderate game of waiting until the Liberal-National Coalition makes a mistake, then statesmanlike fronting the press to give Scott Morrison – the prime minister – a tongue lashing. Not the most effective speaker (like Joe Biden), Albanese sounds a bit diffident, a bit not-quite-there. 

Just like an Opposition’s pre-election policies. Albanese’s method has a lot in common with Barry O’Farrell’s. The Liberal Party leader in New South Wales ran a small-target campaign in the lead-up to the 2011 election and waited for the other side to make mistakes, then took the prize in the end. The Liberal-National Coalition has been in power in the state ever since.

Rudd, meanwhile, is on a new crusade: defanging the Murdoch press. This is a losing battle as nobody will be even remotely interested in repeating Julia Gillard’s loss of face in 2013 – when such reform of media laws was last attempted – a failure that was followed by Labor losing the election to the detestable Tony Abbott. 

The media for its part should be highlighting where Rudd is weakest, and deflect any criticism of Labor onto his shoulders. Doing so’d make it easier for Albanese – the anointed one – to shine, and to beat the L/N Coalition he’ll pretty much need to shine bright. The one good thing that can come of the unpleasant Rudd’s recent visibility is that it can serve as an opportunity to show how decent and electable Albanese is.

Tech boffins shouldn’t risk losing social licence to deal with Australia

When, on 18 February, Facebook stripped its Australian users – people who generate revenues for them, part of that breed of individual whose participation in the platform is the underpinning of all value inhering in it – of the ability to do something as natural and reasonable as sharing links to the news stories they rely on to survive, I was, along with many others, shocked. Here was a company that had called its primary vehicle for sharing – the “news feed” – banning news by blocking links to news websites.

I disabled the app on my iPhone and removed the browser tab from my PC’s start screen but on 23 February the company was back at the bargaining table ready to talk with Australian news producers – people who, in the final analysis, create so much of the value they rely on to keep consumers coming back. 

Juanita Philips does a cross on the ABC news, evening of 23 February.

I was doubly shocked seeing a range of different views in the public sphere – mainly on Twitter. Twitter came into its own for me over these dark days of privation as I’d previously there created a number of different accounts so could hold conversations with different people, but my views were not always echoed and I learned, to my shame, that many people blamed the media for the impasse. In most cases one name came up again and again. A bugbear for all occasions, someone so notorious as to be a byword for poor conduct. I won’t mention the name but I think that anyone who reads my article can imagine what it is. This bias was particularly evident among people on the left and, furthermore, from people living in the United States, where Fox News is, for many, a regretted participant in the public sphere.

But just to denigrate an entire business process on account of your personal revulsion due to one individual media player seemed to me to be counterproductive. There’s a meme on social media about the French philosopher who is said to have quipped something along the lines that holding certain views was regrettable but that the person speaking would defend to the death the right of anyone to have their views heard. The present case makes a mockery of such well-meaning and altruistic principles, and shows us up to be partial and narrow-minded. 

We need to defer to principles in the current debate which is – despite the misleading headlines of last Tuesday – not yet over. Not by a long shot. And we must ask ourselves what living without political speech would be like – for that is what Facebook’s ban means. A world where speech can only be legally conducted upon such subjects as birthdays, pets, and meals eaten in local restaurants. No talk of government policies, of laws that impact on our lives, of court cases, or of diplomatic visits by heads of state. A blanket of silence is discretely drawn across an entire ecosystem of ideas just because a few pampered nobodies in Silicon Valley won’t share. It reminds me of the CCP and their dogged unwillingness – to the point where they simply ban Facebook and Twitter and set up their own social media sites – to share power.

It’s this lack of generosity that is so striking in the case, a lack that says something revealing about ourselves. About the US media pundit who – generously placed on-screen by an eager national broadcaster – poo-poohs the government’s efforts. About the malicious troll who slanders a media baron because others will mindlessly reward their post with likes and shares. About the family member who echoes the same sentiments. About friends who grudgingly – grudgingly! – accept the need for regulation when pressed – when pressed! – but who revert to blaming the mainstream media for not having responded to the technological changes of the past generation with sufficient foresight. 

As if anyone could have done. We need the media more than ever before but it will never be perfect – and this is the tragedy. Because in one person’s eyes the media is flawed therefore the entire system must be overhauled. Because one person cannot stand listening to Sky News after dark a whole group of professionals must be starved of the means to make a living. Just because one person, moreover, likes to read stupid, badly-punctuated and barely literate hot takes by some random posting on an “indie” media site Channel Nine must be punished. 

Or 7 West Media. Or Network Ten. A thousand curses upon the heads of those who criticise the Morrison government for doing the right thing. A million thumbs down for Mark Zuckerberg and his faceless minions, penny-pinching like Scrooge and pretending that they are popular when it is the weird 55-year-old woman you met on Facebook who posts cracked-but-entertaining recaps of her youth who engages you. Or the old friend – over 80 years now but still full of ideas – who resorts to paraphrasing news stories the site has stopped him from sharing. Or the former colleague who puts up pictures of lizards he meets at the beach. Or the goofy right-winger, a friend of a friend, who celebrates Trump in the face of overwhelming pressure to capitulate. It is in these fragments, on the edges of debate, that the real action takes place.

The tech boffins shouldn’t risk losing their social license to deal with Australia. We are the world.

Working around Facebook’s ban

To begin with, here’s what people yesterday saw when they tried to post links taken from Australian news websites:

I saw this humorous take early this morning in my Twitter timeline:

Taking a lead from Chris’ approach – while the BBC home page early this morning (Sydney time) featured a story about the ban, the New York Times’ site did not – my post today contains an often light-hearted take on a first-world problem as the social media giant goes head-to-head with the Australian government. I take a term out of the playbook of one of my favourite TV shows – ‘Hard Quiz’ (Wednesday nights at 8pm on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s main channel) – keeping in mind Tom Gleeson’s Monty Python-esque suppressed grin – a self-conscious smirk – as he hams it up, poking fun at all those drama-filled moments we enjoy so much when we watch TV. “Will Diane win a weekend away at Noosa or will she go home with nothing?” 

The standard, gimcrack game-show spiel. 

We adore the dramatic moment – as long as nothing important’s at stake – but while the Facebook v. Morrison govt contest appears for most to rank low on the criticality stakes, it has affected others hard. 

But there could be an upside: we might start learning how to write. https://magnetformedia.blogspot.com/2021/02/facebook-news-ban-puts-australians-back.html So, to put theory into practice, today I cheekily put the following on Facebook:

Two articles abt Facebook’s ban today on the Sydney Morning Herald website. In one, the PM says he’ll take the issue to the G7 in June. Morrison has spoken abt the ban w Narendra Modi, the Indian president. In another article, Stephen Scheeler, a former chief executive of Facebook in Australia and New Zealand, says, “Lying at the heart of Facebook’s abrupt ban on all Australian news is a global strategic gamble that will have a huge bearing not just on Mark Zuckerberg’s behemoth, but on the dynamic between Big Tech and democracy.” He adds: “I suspect its bet is this: that by taking an aggressive hard line with a middle power, such as Australia, a tough message will be sent to the rest of the world to back off on regulation.”

To demonstrate just how irritated they were with the IT company, people were also doing other things. You can, for example, just copy and paste the news article’s entire text, as did this man:

Another person had the same idea, but only copying part of the target article:

Another way around the ban is to put up screen shots made from offending articles:

The same guy also used the “double-blind” method: screen shots of blog posts about news stories:

One more way around the ban is to use TinyURL:

This solution has the drawback that it crops out images and headlines and teasers, making it necessary to add some own text. Another approach – this time by a freelancer – is to direct people to an email subscription service that is run independent of Facebook. Stephanie Wood has done this, posting:

As I've discovered since taking a redundancy from Fairfax Media in 2017, life on the outside as a freelancer is incredibly tough. I'm not sure right now how I'm going to make a go of it. Facebook's action is a blow to freelancers like me who have tried to build communities and followings using the platform. (Never mind the blow it is to multiple other organisations and people who have used it to get important messages out into the world.)

You can go to her website at http://stephaniewood.com and subscribe:

Facebook’s decision to ban Oz news stories could turn out to be costly for the American company as – compelled by sovereign pride – any number of countries around the world may take a hard line, and move to rein in the behemoth. People who use the service might think, “This is just another case of the company meddling with my life.” Most don’t like to be thwarted. Having cornered part of the market for vanity and spite – the two sides of ego being shitposting and bragging – Facebook might find that it quickly loses all credibility as a trusted partner in the business of staying in touch with friends, acquaintances, and family. 

Complete strangers might well become friends – this has of course happened to me, as it has with pretty much everyone – but I like to feel as though I am in control of the process. Another thing that seems to be ubiquitous is that feeling that Facebook is listening to one’s conversations. This also detracts from the pleasure of the process. For example when you send an email to someone in which you mention a category of consumer product or service and then – all of a sudden – you see an ad for that same product or service on the social graph. As though Facebook had been listening to your chatter (as, indeed, it is).

Facebook knows what to do to counter such worries: it simply ignores them. But it doesn’t know what to do about the Australian government’s new media code – which is due to shortly pass through the Senate – so it is crushing opposition by blocking the posting of news articles. Such a heavy-handed response merely highlights the company’s frustration and dismay. Latika Bourke, the Sydney Morning Herald’s London correspondent, published a story this morning about how the UK government is viewing the Oz news ban: 

The chair of the British parliament’s committee for the media and tech says Facebook’s “irresponsible” decision to cut off news and official government feeds for Australian users constitutes “bullying” and will unite legislators from around the world into wanting to curb Big Tech’s abuse of its monopoly.

Facebook news ban puts Australians back in control of their messaging

Facebook has decided to do the unthinkable and stop Australians – and people overseas posting news from Down Under – sharing their favourite media stories. This move comes just a day after it was announced that Google and a few Australian news organisations had reached agreements on profit sharing.

This move by the tech giant pushes people over to Twitter, but it might have an unintended effect as people, driven by who they are – sharing embodies intrinsic parts of our personalities – start to write their own posts with perhaps the occasional quote from a news outlet. Or even with no quotes – Facebook might block such use of its interface – and, rather, paraphrased extracts of news stories.

We’ll have to see what happens. Twitter, meanwhile will take more territory from its competitor. The government hasn’t asked Twitter to share any profits from its use of news, so as far as things stand currently – the day this article you’re reading was posted – there’s no reason to fear that it’ll become completely impossible for people to engage with other around the news campfire.

Whatever happens, the Facebook shift will increase the importance of literacy. People now – eager to connect with friends and family, and denied a basic freedom by Facebook’s greed – will learn to craft sentences that have the same pith and rigour as your average news story. Short, sharp, to-the-point. 

News is where we live. We’re swimming in stories like fish in the sea. Without stories we die. Solitary confinement can be fatal as it changes the way our brains work, so being connected with others in a news environment is critical to the health of the polis. Without this outlet we feel frustration and will resort to other measures in order to release the pent-up emotions we harbour as a result of dealing with the fear and loathing of daily life. News liberates as it consoles. 

It can also terrify and anger. But whatever happens, with Facebook’s decision comes a moment when Australians – and, indeed, the world – must find other ways to message, to shine a light on the hill, to let fly the billows of signal smoke across the valleys of the oceans.

A little ruckus over the Sussexes’ second child

This article isn’t a swipe at the media but is, instead, a swipe at those who exploit it. I’ll start on 15 February when, at 7.30am Sydney time, America’s Associated Press tweeted that Duke and Duchess of Sussex were expecting their second child. What followed in my limited universe of hopes and aspirations was very small, the contretemps, and hardly worth mentioning but for the consistency of the replies to my adventure, which had been, as follows:

Odd! Considering the Sussex' difficult relationship w the media, why trumpet about Megan again being in the family way? I don't understand ..

Just to make it clear I was genuinely puzzled I put a small emoji in at the end of the post, a quizzical face with a half-frown and blank eyes. I thought the emoji might take any sting out of the post, render it bland and qualify it with the sort of humour – obvious and conventional – that you need to use on Twitter if you want to avoid difficult interactions with people who are more likely to express anger than to empathise with what you’re feeling.

I got anger. One person replied:

They confirmed the news to get it out of the way so paparazzi wouldn’t have an incentive to stalk them for a scoop. Are you new here?

This person was more reasonable:

Because think of all the media outlets commenting on how fat she's getting over the coming months? If they drip feed the news they want the media to have then fair play to them.

As was this (not entirely convincing) riposte:

Meghan is an American actress and celebrity. We would care if she wasn't married to Harry. We're just especially delighted because they are an incredible power couple who are deeply in love. I'm so glad he's away from that toxic family and living his best life.

Over on Facebook I also had grief, having posted this:

Associated Press just announced The Sussexes are expecting a new child. Find it hard to judge Megan but it seems odd to go to the media again after having just won a court case against the British tabloids. If you're going to critique the media -- and even take them to court -- surely you'd want to avoid using them entirely. It seems silly to me, but others will have different views, I'm aware ...

A person used Facebook to snippily correct my spelling of the duchess’ name (I’d put “Megan” – a capital crime in itself), and added:

The case was around the press printing a private letter between Meghan and her father.

The royal tradition of sharing the news of new arrivals is something quite different.

She went on to say that she saw a different standard being applied to Meghan compared to other members of the royal family, with a coda containing information to the effect that she wasn’t a fan of the royals in general – which I took to mean that she supports the idea of an Australian republic.

With one of my Twitter adversaries (almost readying himself for pistols at dawn) I had a further discussion. He said,

I don’t know how to tell you this, but when people get pregnant they often announce it.

To which I replied (considering his response to at least have been civil):

Sure mb to family, but not to the world. Megan and Harry have made a point of critiquing the media. Megan even won a court case recently. If William mentions it in passing to the media that's enough, surely.

To which he responded:

We announced ours on Twitter and Facebook. We don’t have a spokesperson. 

Don’t you have something better to clutch your pearls over?

Ouch! As a parting shot I replied:

I should get new pearls. My old string has been worn down to nubs from constant fretting.

He finally shut up, probably because I’d added another emoji to my humorous tweet, this time a face with eyes of different sizes, as though my avatar were demented, and with its tongue sticking out of its mouth. This emoji was more aggressive than the first one – the replies to my fairly innocuous tweet had been, some of them, unnecessarily nasty – but it still contained a sting, just to let my interlocutor know I wasn’t a complete pushover. Someone else said,

They quit being working royals. They didn't enter a monastery

*Sigh* 

It was all – the sarcasm, the threat of a flame war if I carried on (which I didn’t), the negative emotions being expressed rather than positive ones – all of it was pretty standard for Twitter. Here was all the evidence anyone could need of how fear and loathing has come to characterise public debate, and while reactions to my well-meaning comment were often humorous, I was, in all cases, the butt of the jokes. Not the media and certainly not Meghan who, as had happened so many times, was clearly a figure whose destiny provokes the strongest possible reactions in people.

The AP story that caused all the reactions had the title, “Duchess of Sussex expecting 2nd child, a sibling for Archie,” and was, therefore innocent enough. It also contained an image showing Harry and Meghan walking along together before a collection of stray individuals. The royal couple are holding an umbrella – or, at least, Harry is. Meghan in the photo has her hand gripping Harry’s right arm. In her right hand she holds a clutch and she is dressed – looking slim and terrific (absent baby bump) – in a light-blue gown. They are out for the evening perhaps, I thought to myself, at a concert. 

In fact it had been an awards night. (This article kindly lists all of Meghan’s fashionable clothing, just so the photo is not wasted.) Marie Claire had a story about the same event, which was in March last year.  

But – don’t look at me! (maintain a civil tongue, now) – three days before the AP story went up, the Sydney Morning Herald had a story headlined, “Meghan Markle wins privacy battle.” 

Meghan Markle has won her privacy battle against a British tabloid, with a court ruling the publication of a letter she sent her father was unlawful.

The video on the newspaper’s website started with a still image that was also taken at the 2020 Endeavour Awards, the only difference between the two images being that for the video the SMH photo had been taken from a different angle.

Back on Facebook someone I only know from using that platform for communication, said:

They want it both ways and all on their terms

Which I thought summed up the situation perfectly, and which had been – in my initiative sallie – the nub of the matter. The royals in question were milking an opportunity to raise their brand since – now that they’d split formally from Harry’s dysfunctional family – they would in future partly rely on money they could earn from their own enterprise in order to pay the bodyguards and the hotels and the first-class seats in international passenger jets (at least, once the vaccine had started to kick in and borders opened up again).

Bing lied to me. Harry and Meghan are no longer “senior” royals, and in a January 2020 story Time put up this:

In a statement shared on their official Instagram page on Jan. 8, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex said that, as they transition away from their role as “senior” royals, they plan to “work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen.”

In the AP story there’s this:

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: “Her Majesty, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales and the entire family are delighted and wish them well.”

Rancour abates on account of the happy occasion (blood is thicker than water) despite a tense separation of what were – once upon a time – shared interests. But being aspirational Harry and Meghan are not going to let a good opportunity pass by them. They do, indeed, want to have their cake – be unburdened by the exigencies of royal routine – and eat it, too – they’re not going to miss a chance to capitalise on the fever for royalty shared by most of the community.

It ensures an unlimited supply of lucrative offers from different parts of the global community. For these two are, without question, global superstars. The crème de la crème. Yet people still sympathise with them. With Meghan especially. As though they were people “just like us”.

Her problem is that relations with The Mail on Sunday (the British tabloid she sued in court) and its ilk – economic loss will be offset by publicity for the machinery of signification – are likelier to continue, in future, fraught if – as she’s done with her pregnancy announcement – she cravenly capitalises on the intersection of family and public sphere. 

Of course, we cannot know what the future holds. We can only hope that, unlike their grandfather, her children grow up content with their lot and able to lead fulfilling and productive lives. While, considering what happened to Harry’s mother, kicking up a fuss over the expected baby is probably not wise, retirement would lead to a fall in income.

Not all news is local: Coverage of farmer protests emphasises media myopia

To illustrate my point, just compare the coverage of the Indian farmer protests to that of the 6 January riots in the US Capitol. Even if you watch the evening news every night, and even if, when you do, one after the other you watch all the bulletins, you’d hardly be aware that, since the northern summer last year, thousands of Punjabi farmers have been taking to the streets to protest new laws introduced by the Modi government. Channel Nine and even the ABC have largely left the story alone and, as a result – outside of the Covid crisis – one of the biggest stories of the past 12 months is being ignored in my country. 

Not a bot …

Part of the problem with the Punjabi protests lies in the difficulty of finding out details. This can come down to as small a thing as the lack of language skills, and while many people are illiterate in the Punjab, the culture there is different from the rest of India. People have a firm understanding of who they are, and they are very compassionate and proud. 

“Punjabis are very big hearted,” says a friend I spoke with about the crisis. They have a strong ethnic identity, making the famous Bangla music, and have exported the equally famous tandoori food to any number of countries worldwide. This diaspora is also a source of strength because it means that Punjabis are closely involved with the global political order, especially that which obtains in the developed West. Punjabi farmers produce a lot of the grain consumed in India – I have been told 20 percent of the country’s wheat, for example – so farmers there know their own importance. They are physically large and strong – my friend also, casually, told me – and their character is equally generous and expansive. Supporting fellow Punjabis is important to them, and many would be prepared to take extreme action rather than give way.

Even within India there is, apparently, a lack of credible information, and now that the government is working to silence journalists, it is hard even for Indian people to find out the truth of the case on the ground in New Delhi.

The offensive laws are aimed at making it possible for farmers – many of whom are small operators – to enter into agreements with distributors that set prices according to the action of supply and demand, rather than (as currently happens) based on a government-controlled price. But how this is to exactly function, and even the nitty gritty of the legislation – very little of this has appeared in public and because illiteracy is widespread it is hard for the truth to find the means to be communicated. 

The BJP controls much of the media as well as having powerful friends in business, so its position is the dominant one.

The government thinks that, by silencing protest leaders – such as labour activist Nodeep Kaur – they can quell unrest and drag the country back to a state of calm. 

Despite ubiquitous connection – “The most remote villages have mobile phones,” says my friend – the Government of India has reportedly had at least one YouTube video pulled down and has reportedly threatened Twitter executives with detention if some tweets are not removed from the site. Many people however flounder in a sea of vagueness. A lack of focus makes it easier for bad actors to sway individuals to behave in a certain way, and makes it almost impossible for the general public – especially in the West – to form a reasoned understanding of the case. 

Embarrassment in the face of international criticism is a real threat. Most Indians – even if they are no longer poor – remember what it was like to be poor, so are wary of any trouble or discord, which they identify with a shameful state of vulnerability. And the Indian middle class is growing with, my friend says, most protagonists in Bollywood movies these days being rich. Gone are the days when, on the silver screen, a struggling poor man makes good.

Meanwhile, there are further developments that would hardly even enter into an Australian news story. Some people have been imprisoned by the government for speaking out in support of the protesters. There have been beatings and even torture. The government is attempting to silence its enemies by cutting their access to the internet and to electricity – though friends and family can still bring them food in order for them to survive.

Of course not everyone is singing from the same song sheet.

This individual looks legit (see below Twitter profile screen). Not, at any rate, a bot.

Despite so many Indians being farmers, the government can use nationalism – Punjab has attempted to attain independence before – and religion – Punjabis are largely Sikh, not Hindus – to divide and conquer.

It seems that there is still a way to negotiate.

So whatever happens we can only hope that it takes place in the public sphere. So far, coverage of this critical issue has been abysmal. Such coverage is important not just for Indian farmers – and not just for Indians. It’s important for all of us because the democracy project has to be seen to succeed, and not just succeed. Just as open justice demands the participation of the media in court trials, in the polis itself both sides need to be heard. 

We might even get a chance to have a bit of a laugh.

In his book ‘All News Is Local’ Richard Stanton discusses at length a phenomenon where events that might serve to illustrate global standards are usually ignored by the media in favour of the story with a local angle. If we want to find better accommodation of such ideas as international government – we already have many such organisations, such as the UN and the IMF – then we need to improve the level of coverage of issues such as the Indian farmers’ protests. 

On 19 October 2007 I attended a talk given by Stanton (see photos below) at the University of Sydney where I was enrolled and where Stanton taught. The talk was on account of the publication of his book.