Australian media: what a week

This week has been a momentous one in Australian news media. The two largest print media corporations (Murdoch's News Ltd and Fairfax) have both announced major restructuring leading to more than 3,000 job losses. Furthermore, the world's richest woman and Australian mining magnate Gina Rinehart has announced her intention to take a controlling share of the beleaguered Fairfax. Rinehart has made it clear that her goal is not profit, nor public service but influence, and she intends to exert editorial control, refusing to sign the Fairfax Media Charter of editorial independence. The implications of these changes are wide ranging and yet the precise shape remains uncertain. Rinehart is a noted climate dissenter and fierce opponent of the government's superprofits mining tax. I am no particular fan of Fairfax media, but am not feeling very confident that it will improve under Rinehart. Indeed, if I look at the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) pieces I've linked to over the last few years, I wonder how many would have made the cut under Rinehart's hand. Perhaps we may have little difficulty anticipating more voices like Andrew Bolt and his serial disinformation. It will be interesting to see whether those like Elizabeth Farrelly or Ross Gittins remain.

The week's events have only made me feel more favourably towards The Conversation (which I introduced back here), a not for profit news media site set up by CSIRO and five universities (with a few other corporate partners) that runs ad-free, is editorially independent and with nearly all contributions by accredited experts in the subject who have to declare all potential conflicts of interest next to their article. And just today I've realised that they also publish all their material under a Creative Commons license, meaning it can be republished for free (under certain very non-onerous conditions).

Here are some perspectives on these developments that appeared this week at The Conversation:

Malcolm Fraser: Does it matter who owns our papers? Yes it does.
Malcolm Fraser was Australian Prime Minister between 1975 and 1983 for the more conservative of Australia's two main parties.

Stephan Lewandowsky: Rinehart’s tilt at power is bad news for public debate.

David McKnight: Gina Rinehart and Rupert Murdoch: a study of power in the media.

Andrew Jaspar: Fairfax or Gina-fax? Let’s have the debate before it’s over and Media earthquake: panic, disinformation, and competing visions at Fairfax and News.

UPDATE: GetUp are running a simple survey on public attitudes towards Fairfax, which will take less than 60 seconds.

Obama is as bad as Bush

Guardian: Obama is as bad as Bush at watering down or blocking environmental regulation.

UTS: Australian news coverage of climate change is seriously unbalanced. No prizes for guessing the worst culprit.

Monbiot: EU farm subsidies continue to give tens of billions to the wealthy, which isn't a problem because Europe is of course swimming in cash at the moment.

New Matilda: What is happening at Sydney University? Nothing other than one battle in an ongoing war for the soul of the university occurring in most societies dominated by current economic orthodoxies.

UN: New FAO report says that 25% of the world's land area is "highly degraded" from human activities.

Independent: The dying Dead Sea.

Guardian: UK government secretly supporting Canadian tar sands - yet another piece of disconnected thinking from the "greenest government ever".

Gittins: What does it profit a corporation to gain the whole world and lose the souls of all its employees and customers? Gittins thinks Michael Schluter from the Relationships Forum is a genius.

Obesity: personal or structural?

Ross Gittins puts the boot into GDP as a measure of economic well-being once again, this time by pointing out that obesity is win-win-win for GDP. He reviews a book that argues that the sudden and dramatic surge in obesity since the 1980s shows that it is a structural problem with the way we organise our society rather than a few individuals who lack self-control.

The relationship between individual moderation and social structures is complex. Like the debate between light and deep green, this problem doesn't have a simple answer. Of course it is both-and, rather than either-or, but where does the emphasis lie, and so where ought the weight of our attention and exertion rest?

Maxing out the credit card

I will return to yesterday's quote soon, though I note with interest the discussion about whether "urgency" is a theological category.

In the meantime, here are two interesting pieces by SMH economist Ross Gittins. The first from a few months ago, argues that "we have been paying off our economic credit card by racking up debt on our environmental credit card", an idea not unrelated to the idea of an ecological credit crunch. The second article, from a few days ago, is about the shortsightedness of government subsidies for middle class status symbols.

Gittins on Australia's hung parliament

Ross Gittins once again talks sense in his latest SMH article on why the Greens did so well. Here's a taste:

"So unattractive was the choice the main parties offered that I'm sure people voted Greens for various reasons. But no doubt concern about lack of ''real action'' on climate change was the most prominent. Consider the way people concerned about global warming - still a majority of voters - were dudded by the two main parties. Both went to the last election promising to introduce (similar) emissions trading schemes; both went to this election promising not to introduce such schemes. [...]

"The Libs describe their approach as 'direct action' - which translates as support for the regulation and government intervention once primarily associated with Labor. Labor's major contribution to the climate change policy debate during the campaign was its proposal for a 'citizens' assembly', which sounds reminiscent of the Greens' historical preference for 'consensus-based' decision-making. The Greens, on the other hand, have been pushing for the economic rationalist approach of relying on a carbon tax and price signals."

Gittins mentions a new paper put out by the Australia Institute that includes six principles for policy design on climate change.

I've also just caught up with two slightly older pieces by Gittins: Gillard's failure of leadership and why the pursuit of green jobs is a distraction from climate action.

Losing track of time while reading the newspaper

"Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock."

- Ben Hecht

News media is interested in news, which means olds are generally not reported. Anything that is doing well without much drama, or which is still doing just as disastrously bad as it has been for a while, drops below the radar of news media. Indeed, without a trigger of some kind, incremental changes also largely pass by unnoticed. Unless you happen to be watching when the second hand reaches "12", you might miss the fact that we're in a new minute. And the chances of noticing a new hour are even lower. And so this quote is very apt, since the more important large scale things generally don't receive much coverage.

And all this is before we've even mentioned other systemic problems in contemporary profit-driven, narrowly-owned news media eviscerated by short deadlines, relying on untrained journalists, polluted by populism and more interested in conflict than consensus.

Of course, some sources are better than others, not all media is the mouthpiece for corporate interests and quality journalism still survives. Just don't set your watch by it.

From xkcd.com.

Can Christians be capitalists?

"God is a relational being, whose priority is not economic growth, but right relationships both between humanity and himself and between human beings. Christ's injunction to 'love God and love your neighbour' points to the priority of relational wealth over financial wealth because love is a quality of relationships."

- Ross Gittins, summarising Michael Schulter

Ross Gittins, economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, has done a good job summarising a paper by Michael Schluter of the Relationships Foundation, a Christian think tank dedicated to re-conceptualising social and economic relations from a relational rather than purely economic standpoint.

Schluter's short paper makes five main criticisms of capitalism as we know it today: its exclusively materialistic vision; its tendency to offer rewards without responsibilities; its limitation of liabilities on shareholders; its tendency to disconnect people from places; and its undermining of social safeguards. Whether these criticisms apply to all forms of capitalism or only to what Schluter calls "corporate capitalism" is a question for further discussion, but as a brief and accessible Christian critique of trends in contemporary economic theory and practice, it's not a bad effort.

The whole paper is worth reading, but if you'd like a slightly condensed version, then at least look at Gittens' summary in the SMH. If you enjoyed Schluter's critique, you might also like to look at his brief outline of a possible alternative approach, called Beyond Capitalism: Towards a relational economy.
H/T Dad, John Shorter and Josh Kuswadi, who all sent me links to this article. I'm touched to know that so many people associate me with anti-capitalism.

Housing affordability: Gittins, good government and greed

Sydney Morning Herald economics editor Ross Gittins has yet another stimulating article in today's SMH on the hot topic of housing affordability. He argues that none of the 'solutions' currently being kicked around by the MPs will improve the situation. Increasing the first-home owners' grant, cutting stamp duty, a subsidised saving scheme or anything else that gives buyers more power will only make things worse, pushing prices up:

That is because genuine solutions to affordability are counter-intuitive - contrary to common sense - and pollies often settle for "solutions" that don't work but sound like they should. Because the fundamental cause of hard-to-afford prices is demand exceeding supply, the only genuine solutions involve either increasing supply or reducing demand.

Instead of giving more buying power to all buyers (thus raising prices), Gittins argues, we can cut demand by removing the tax-breaks associated with property ownership. I'll let you read the details of his proposed alternative (and why he says it will never be implemented), but I found the article interesting for three reasons.

First, this piece once again highlights the way that the media often shortcircuits effective government. The very media scrutiny required to keep governments honest also encourages short term, populist solutions, those that are easily packaged and 'sold' to the electorate. Partially this is due to our own lack of patience. We want to see results now, and we threaten political failure to those who don't deliver on time. But I think it is also due to a common misconception of the nature of representative democracy. It is a widespread assumption that MPs are there to reflect our preferences and opinions, that they ought to be swayed by public opinion. But do we want those who govern us to be held ransom to our collective prejudices? No, they ought to lead, to be swayed only by persuasive arguments, not a daily media-driven popularity contest. We elect representatives to make decisions for us, on our behalf. We give them the time, resources and authority to make and implement judgements on our behalf and for the common good. They are not simply agents to enforce the will of the majority.*

Second, I really hope that this issue (housing affordability) doesn't come to dominate the upcoming election campaign. Not only are there more pressing and more important issues that may get marginalised by it, but collectively focusing on this issue encourages us in our self-obsession. I don't need more help in thinking about myself.

And third, there is a better solution, both simpler and far more difficult than the one Gittins suggests: "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions." (Luke 12.15)
*Of course, there is more to be said on this topic. Andrew Errington has started a series on Jesus and government, in which he will (of course) be drawing heavily on the work of O'Donovan.
Fifteen points for guessing the English town in the picture.

Gittins on eating

More interesting research reported by Ross Gittins in today's SMH on the unconscious operations that lead to overeating:

And, being social animals, how much we eat is heavily influenced by other people. When we're with people we like we tend to eat for longer than when we're alone. If others are still eating we tend to keep eating. Research suggests that if you eat with one other person you eat a third more; when you eat with seven or more people you'll eat almost twice as much.