tag:theconversation.com,2011:/es/topics/waleed-aly-14960/articlesWaleed Aly – The Conversation2016-12-11T23:36:53Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/697872016-12-11T23:36:53Z2016-12-11T23:36:53ZWhy we should care more about the Logies<p>This is the time of year when many of the nation’s good little boys and girls start making wish lists. It’s also when many of the good boys and girls of Australian television start asking their audiences to vote for them at the Logies.</p>
<p>You could, perhaps, dismiss each as an overly and unnecessarily commercial ritual – or you could look at the latter, at least, as a rare occasion where the audience gets to have a say about who represents them on television. No channel or potential nominee is immune at the moment; even SBS and Aunty are shamelessly plugging voting outlets and partitioning for support.</p>
<p>There is one notable exception – Lee Lin Chin. But she’s so wonderful the award is barely worthy of being bestowed on her, anyway.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"800480872277250049"}"></div></p>
<p>The Logies is a fantastically daggy institution. For nearly 60 years the awards have been typically held in a ballroom/hotel/casino space, punctuated by a shipped-in international (read: American) celebrity, where Australian television is celebrated in all its often low-budget glory. </p>
<p>At its best, the tension between these elements has simply been stared down and sent up. Take Shaun Micallef’s 2010 acceptance speech. Not wanting to appear “cocky” by writing a speech, nor wanting to waste time writing notes in case he didn’t win, he just downloaded a speech from the internet. Upon winning, he followed through with his plan, reading out Sir Laurence Olivier’s 1977 Academy Award winner’s speech, which – as he put it – “seems only appropriate” for the occasion.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O6g6gb0wRu0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Importantly, the Logies provide space to compare public and industry definitions of achievement. And often the public and the industry make very different choices about what they want to celebrate in the Australian television industry. </p>
<p>As TV Week explains <a href="http://www.tvweeklogieawards.com.au/logies-faq">on its website</a>, “popular” (labelled as “best”) awards are voted by the public, while “outstanding” awards are voted by the TV industry. These categories and their descriptions are curious – implying that the public can assess what might be worthy of surface attention (“best”); while the industry determines what is lasting and of broader significance (“outstanding”). </p>
<p>You could assume, then, that different types of shows and artists win the audience and industry nominated categories. You might also even assume, particularly given recent political trends towards conservatism, that the audience awards would tend to favour traditional stereotypes of Australianness: male performers of a certain age and type with the right mix of camera-loving Crocodile enthusiasm and loveable roguishness. </p>
<p>It follows then, to assume that the industry awards might reflect artists that are a bit more diverse than this – perhaps more women, perhaps artists who are culturally and ethnically diverse, perhaps people of different ages and with a traditionally less prominent place in dominant Australian media culture.</p>
<p>However, if we compare the two big ticket industry and audience awards – the Hall of Fame (industry) and the Gold Logie (audience) – some interesting patterns emerge, breaking these assumption models. The Hall of Fame has only existed since 1984 so I compared both from there, drawing data from the <a href="http://www.tvweeklogieawards.com.au/logie-history/">Logies website</a>.</p>
<p>A quick comparison of these award winners shows the remarkably different way the audience and the industry recognises Australian television achievement. The Hall of Fame shows a place where the “old boys club” dominates, as does a very strong representation of Channel 9 and 7 alumni. It also shows a relatively mono-cultural view of Australian television. </p>
<p>In 2016, Noni Hazelhurst was added as the second woman in The Hall of Fame. In her acceptance speech she called the establishment’s slow acknowledgement of diversity as “glacial”, but also dug back, saying “the thing about glaciers though, is that if you’re not on them, you go under.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5t_56o2GEAM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The Gold Logie results tell us that the audience has been comparatively much more appreciative of Australian television’s diversity than the industry. This includes almost an equal gender split (14 Gold Logie wins for women; 19 for men – including multiple award winners of both genders), but also performers representing different types of television programming and cultural identities. </p>
<p>Soap operas were acknowledged much earlier and more regularly in the audience rather than in the industry category, as has been young performers during their early careers. The Gold Logie voters seemed to know, much earlier than the industry did, that Kylie Minogue would go on to have a great and varied career: the sparks that Charlene the Ramsay Street mechanic set off were to be lasting. </p>
<p>The audience also seemed to value a different type of male presence on television – with the early 1990s domination of Ray Martin showing the importance of the broadcaster’s careful, considered approach – a quality that had previously gone underappreciated when compared to the flashiness of the Hogans and Newtons and Kennedys. The industry did eventually catch up and on to this, and of course, they kept on employing him, but why has it taken a while to celebrate these alternatives?</p>
<p>To me the most telling, and perhaps most inspiring, was the Gold Logie win of Waleed Aly last year. An academic, a proud Muslim man, a commentator with a “funny approach” who isn’t necessarily a comedian, he is also someone who sits right there in the commercial mainstream talking to a prime time, general audience. Notably, too, he’s not part of the commercial powerhouses of the Channel 9/Channel 7 boardrooms, or the (hopefully still) protected territories of diversity with the public service broadcasters ABC and SBS. </p>
<p>If you compare Aly’s profile to the rest of what the industry has seemed to value, it would have been easy to assume he didn’t have a chance. (Indeed, the industry <a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/six-reasons-why-waleed-aly-should-not-win-gold/news-story/b2ea6713f4f78a20878930c40f7c41aa">reasserted</a> those values when he was first nominated.) But there he was. The golden boy, as voted by ordinary, commercial TV watching, Australia. Their “best” and most “popular”.</p>
<p>The difference between the industry and audience awards at the Logies shows us why we should care about the event. The audience vote for variety, while the industry lags, shows where the real Australian “fair go” attitude actually lies. The difference in value systems between the audience and industry also serves as a stark warning. </p>
<p>If the industry is meant to be representing the audience, presenting their stories, entertainment and news, then they need to take seriously what the audience says they value. And what’s great about the audience is that their values clearly change over time. Just look at the journey from Bert to Jana, from Ray to Rove, and on to Asher and Waleed – I can’t wait to see who emerges in this round of nominations. </p>
<p><br></p>
<p><em>The Logies are awarded in April 2017, and voting closes December 18.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69787/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Logies are fantastically daggy, but they let us compare audience and industry definitions of achievement. Looking back, it’s clear the public celebrates new, diverse and varied television.Liz Giuffre, Lecturer in Communication, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/636952016-08-09T23:17:55Z2016-08-09T23:17:55ZAndrew Bolt and ACMA: should ‘hyperbole’ get in the way of accuracy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133429/original/image-20160809-18034-1wiam62.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A recent ACMA investigation found Andrew Bolt did not breach the commercial TV code of practice.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Andrew Bolt is a living media ethics case study who just keeps giving. </p>
<p>After a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-28/bolt-found-guilty-of-breaching-discrimination-act/3025918">2011 court case</a> in which Bolt was successfully prosecuted for breaching the Racial Discrimination Act, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Broadcasting%20Investigations/Investigation%20reports/TV%20investigations/Word%20document%202016/BI185%20%20The%20Bolt%20Report%20Southern%20Cross%20Ten%202%20docx.docx">recently found</a> his TV show, The Bolt Report, did not breach the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Broadcasting%20Investigations/Regulation/pdf/Commercial%20Television%20Industry%20Code%20of%20Practice%202010.pdf">Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice (2010)</a> for its handling of a graphic representing a “warming pause”.</p>
<p>Although quite different in substance and topic from racial discrimination, the ACMA case raises similar questions of fair and accurate reporting, the clash over facts, fair comment and the right of readers and viewers to be fully informed.</p>
<h2>Fair and accurate reporting</h2>
<p>Expectations of fair and accurate reporting are <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/investigation-concepts-series">deeply embedded</a> in the fabric of Australian media regulation. The first clause of the <a href="https://www.meaa.org/meaa-media/code-of-ethics/">journalists’ code of ethics</a> is the most visible expression of this standard in Australia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Australian Press Council’s first <a href="http://www.presscouncil.org.au/statements-of-principles/">“general principle”</a> goes to accuracy and clarity:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Broadcasting%20Investigations/Regulation/pdf/Commercial%20Television%20Industry%20Code%20of%20Practice%202010.pdf">2010 Commercial Television (Free-to-Air) Code of Practice</a>, now superseded by the <a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/media/Code_of_Practice/Free_TV_Commercial_Television_Industry_Code_of_Practice_2015.pdf">2015 code</a>, continues the theme:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In broadcasting news and current affairs programs, licensees:</p>
<ul>
<li>must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program; an assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety.</li>
</ul>
<p>In broadcasting news programs (including news flashes) licensees:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>must present news fairly and impartially;</p></li>
<li><p>must clearly distinguish the reporting of factual material from commentary and analysis.</p></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<p>The codes embody a “news not views” framework. If is not news, it must be clearly distinct as such – in the words of the Press Council, made “distinguishable from other material such as opinion”.</p>
<p>Sometimes this is done through direct labelling of a piece as editorial, or even advertorial, but at other times the work of demarcation is felt to be done at genre or program level. That is, certain kinds of programs are not required to declare a departure from news because they represent an ongoing discussion of views, opinions and interpretations.</p>
<p>For example, under the <a href="http://www.freetv.com.au/media/Code_of_Practice/Free_TV_Commercial_Television_Industry_Code_of_Practice_2015.pdf">2015 code</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Current affairs programs are not required to be impartial and may take a particular stance on issues.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Fair and accurate reporting standards run deep, and not just in media regulation. It <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html">underpins several defences</a> protecting news reporting under wider Australian law.</p>
<h2>The clash over facts</h2>
<p>Facts don’t speak for themselves but are extrapolated in particular regimes so that they become truth. This particular Bolt case puts two systems into conflict: science and the quasi-judicial.</p>
<p>The science regime is one activated by the <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/%7E/media/Broadcasting%20Investigations/Investigation%20reports/TV%20investigations/Word%20document%202016/BI185%20%20The%20Bolt%20Report%20Southern%20Cross%20Ten%202%20docx.docx">original complaints</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I would call into question the graph used by Mr Andrew Bolt on his program “The Bolt Report” aired on 8 Nov 2015.</p>
<p>It is a small section of a much larger graph that clearly shows climate change is increasing as predicted by science, taking small sections of larger graphs is neither accurate nor scientific.</p>
<p>It is a way to manipulate data to give a false impression of the overall problem. I would request that you seek good science-based evidence to check Mr Bolt’s claims that his graph shows a hiatus in climate change and ask him to correct his statements and apologise for what appears to be the deliberate spreading of incorrect information.</p>
<p>If the scientist who compiled the chart says that Mr Bolt’s interpretation of it is wrong then it is fairly obvious that Mr Bolt’s comments and the information he has given is wrong.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Project host Waleed Aly <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/waleed-aly-takes-on-andrew-bolt-over-climate-change-let-me-nip-this-in-the-bud-20151210-gljuj1.html">activated this regime</a> in his discussion of Bolt’s comments. The show interviewed Carl Mears, the author of the graph Bolt used, who said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When you do real science you can’t just use the data sets that fit your pre-drawn conclusions, but you really need to look at all the data together. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In particular, Mears complains about the selective use of satellite data over surface data sets.</p>
<p>This regime takes offence at the provision of a graph that shows data from the last 18 years, but excludes the rest of the data set that goes back to 1979.</p>
<p>Advocates of this regime might pick up a flaw in a basic assumption made by ACMA:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ACMA considers that Mr Bolt used the term ‘warming of the atmosphere’ in a general, non-scientific sense, and that it is sufficiently broad in meaning to include surface air temperatures, which are a measure of the heat present in the atmospheric layer immediately above the land and surface of the ocean.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As someone who has discussed climate change extensively, it is questionable whether Bolt should be judged as using “the term ‘warming of the atmosphere’ in a general, non-scientific sense”. Similarly, should phrases such as “warming pause” be deemed to summarise the claim <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jn4mCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA769&lpg=PA769#v=onepage&q&f=false">gleaned from a report</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The observed global-mean surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The second regime is a quasi-legalistic one. The ACMA judgment has a clear procedural progression. First, you ask: “Was the material factual in character?” Then, you ask: “If so, was the (factual) material accurate?”</p>
<p>This legalism is in action in the ACMA judgment, in the requirement that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The accuracy requirements in the code only apply to statements of fact and do not apply to statements of opinion. The statement that ‘there has been no real warming of the atmosphere for around 18 years’ was specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification. Mr Bolt’s concluding statement about choosing ‘facts over fear’ further indicated that the statement was an assertion of fact.</p>
<p>The statement was accompanied by a full-screen image of a graph. The words ‘as I keep showing you’ would have suggested that the graph was presented as evidence in support of the factual assertion about the pause.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Bolt’s comments are situated as comments of fact, rather than opinion. This is the basis of the decision. However, ACMA’s “considerations for determining factual content” says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ACMA will have regard to all contextual indications (including subject, language, tenor and tone and inferences that may be drawn) in making its assessment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In considering this aspect, ACMA concluded:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Much of Mr Bolt’s language was hyperbolic, such as, ‘great global warming scare campaign’, ‘Australians aren’t stupid’, ‘can’t be fooled for long’, ‘all that propaganda’, ‘scaremongers’, ‘there’s been no Armageddon’ and ‘no wonder’. The use of hyperbole indicated that Mr Bolt was giving his subjective personal opinion about the matters being discussed and was not presenting a concluded scientific position about global warming in the segment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is the finding’s most confusing aspect. Exploring hyperbole satisfies the requirement for determining factual content by looking at language and tone. But, at the same time, this exploration undermines the baseline decision to treat the project as statements of fact rather than statements of opinion. </p>
<p>It is no surprise Bolt <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/acma_and_the_age_go_hyperbolic_over_my_warming_facts_which_they_cant_fault">has taken umbrage</a> with the idea that his reports were hyperbole, meaning exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be literally. The reason he draws on a graphic in the first place is to impress a literal reading on the viewer. </p>
<p>Returning to ACMA’s treatment of hyperbole, readers may well wonder: are we dealing with fact or opinion, and where does that leave “the accuracy requirements of the code”? Indeed, ACMA’s guidelines say:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Statements containing hyperbole will rarely be characterised as factual material.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The ACMA decision sidesteps this issue by focusing on statements of fact:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The ACMA therefore finds that, in the context of the segment in its entirety, Mr Bolt’s statement about there being no real warming of the atmosphere over the last 18 years, and the graph used to support that statement, comply with the code.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, Bolt’s claim of “no real warming of the atmosphere over the last 18 years” is sufficiently supported by the graph as to not breach the requirement that licensees:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly, having regard to the circumstances at the time of preparing and broadcasting the program.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The ‘hyperbole defence’ and responsibility to inform</h2>
<p>So, Fairfax Media is <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/news-and-current-affairs/regulator-says-andrew-bolt-too-hyperbolic-to-be-factual-20160805-gqm7n9.html">not quite right</a> to report this matter as a question of the regulator saying Bolt is too hyperbolic to be factual. This observation was not core to the issue of Bolt’s use of “statements of fact”. But the introduction of hyperbole into ACMA’s reasoning introduces an ambiguity as to why exactly no breach was found – an ambiguity the Fairfax report captures nicely.</p>
<p>Several elements of the judgment are disquieting and raise further questions.</p>
<p>The first is the way the complaint is handled as a complaint about the use of a graph, when broader issues of accuracy and fair report are touched on by the code’s requirement that reports “must present factual material accurately and represent viewpoints fairly”. Why is the full graph not treated as a viewpoint in its own right?</p>
<p>A narrow focus on the graph rather than the views it embodies allows the licensee to argue “his comments correlate to the graph provided”. It allows ACMA to state Bolt is correct in saying there has been “no <em>real</em> warming” without any discussion of the “real” at all.</p>
<p>The second question has to do with the code’s requirement that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>An assessment of whether the factual material is accurate is to be determined in the context of the segment in its entirety. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>ACMA could have looked beyond the graph to consider the matter of accuracy more broadly. It might have come to the same conclusion, but at least the logic of the argument would be more satisfying. The entire segment is a defence of the claim that “the great global warming scare campaign has failed” by referring to a CSIRO survey that confirms Bolt’s view that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have more sceptics now than believers … Nearly 46% of Australians say they believe humans are mostly to blame for the warming we’ve seen, but they’re outnumbered by the nearly 39% who say the warming is natural plus the 8% who think there’s actually been no warming, at least lately.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The graph is provided as an illustration of why Australians are thinking they way they are. Put this way, Bolt’s report could be defended as pure polemic: fair comment, honestly held, even if selective in its presentation of the graph.</p>
<p>A third, and perhaps most worrying issue, is the narrow picture of the relationship between facts and opinion that emerges from Bolt’s report and the ACMA case. The ACMA judgment focuses in on a particular claim, that “there has been no real warming of the atmosphere for around 18 years”, but there are other issues at play in the report to do with the handling of scientific data and viewpoints.</p>
<p>There is a wider responsibility to inform the public that is not being considered. A legal construction of statement of facts falls short of the complaints’ general expectations of accuracy.</p>
<p>Basic questions remain unanswered. These include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Is it really OK to selectively present scientific research in this way? Does this satisfy accuracy? </p></li>
<li><p>Does a statement of fact really provide immunity to wider expectations of presenting factual material accurately and representing viewpoints fairly?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>As the Australian media move more toward “views” rather than “news”, these distinctions will become trickier to draw and navigate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63695/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Maras does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An ACMA investigation of Andrew Bolt raises questions of fair and accurate reporting, the clash over facts, fair comment and the right of readers and viewers to be fully informed.Steven Maras, Associate Professor in Media and Communication, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/590602016-05-09T04:20:27Z2016-05-09T04:20:27ZThe Logies: a yearly advertisement for Australian TV<p>In the age of boutique TV, binge watching, and data drops of entire series, it is easy to forget the dominant function of television: the broadcasting of a stream of advertisements directly into the living room of the consumer. This stream is, of course, intermittently interrupted by content, otherwise known as “shows.”</p>
<p>Thankfully, we still have Channel Nine to remind us. Programs like The Voice have developed commercial integration so effectively that the distinction between content (ie, advertisements) and filler (ie, singing people) becomes at times almost unrecognisable.</p>
<p>Television has always been fuelled by advertising, and the Logies are the yearly advertisement for Australian TV – they are called, after all, the “TV Week Logies”. The writers of “Sydney Confidential” aside, it is difficult to imagine anyone getting too excited about this event, even if it has in the past offered up ample material for Australian comedians. </p>
<p>So how did this year’s broadcast fare? </p>
<p>Richard Wilkins, as usual, featured prominently. This is a good thing – it’s important to remember that people like Wilkins actually exist. Dave Hughes made some comical digs at media celebrities like Shane Warne and Kyle Sandilands and Kitty Flanagan appropriately ripped into cooking shows. Tim Minchin offered a heartfelt speech about Australia’s genocidal past, accepting his award of Most Outstanding Supporting Actor (The Secret River). </p>
<p>At the end of the night Waleed Aly won the Gold Logie. His acceptance speech began by drawing attention to the dominance of white faces on Australian TV. “Do not adjust your set … This is happening! It’s true – finally a male presenter on commercial TV has won the Gold Logie.” He celebrated Australian multiculturalism drawing attention to the award as proof of his acceptance by the Australian public. He also focused on the significance of the award for minority voices in Australia, alluding to the Islamaphobia at the core of the Australian television industry.</p>
<p>It was a simple speech in which Aly appeared to demonstrate significant humility. At the same time, it was lightly humorous and non-confrontational and, essentially, apolitical – grist to the mill for the televisual medium. </p>
<p>This contrasted starkly with the highlight of the night, Noni Hazelhurst’s earlier, explicitly political acceptance speech following her induction into the Logies Hall of Fame (surely a dubious honour?). Hazelhurst reflected on changes in the media-technological landscape over the past 40 years, and the necessity for empathy and love in the face of the current trend towards brutality in broadcasting practices. It was a speech full of warmth and intelligence, buoyed by a genuinely egalitarian spirit – bravo! </p>
<p>Some criticisms were raised by Rachael Jacobs in <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-as-an-indian-australian-ill-be-watching-sundays-logies-for-the-first-time-in-years-58930">The Conversation last week</a> regarding the lack of diversity on Australian television. The points Jacobs raises are valid and true, within a limited scope.</p>
<p>All advertising holds up a broad mirror reflecting the ugliness of its culture, whether that be through gender, sexuality, race, ability, body or age profiling. The experiences Jacobs describes simply demonstrate the racism that undergirds Australian culture. With an eye to Australian history, one might think this is to be expected. </p>
<p>“Diversity” on Australian TV, given the limited scope of the nature of commercial “broadcasting,” seems like something of an oxymoronic subject. </p>
<p>This kind of identity politics, furthermore, often assuages the need for genuine political engagement on a universal level.</p>
<p>To worry about “diversity” on TV rather than to worry about the actual power structures and media corporations that control and frame our tele/vision, is a bit like a passenger on the Titanic worrying about a bruised elbow from the ship’s collision with the iceberg. </p>
<p>What is in fact a far more interesting area for thought is the nature of television itself, and how the medium is radically changing with the proliferation of narrowcasting. </p>
<p>Will the transformation from “entertaining” programming like Magnum P.I. into the production of more cinematic works like Breaking Bad murder commercial broadcasting? </p>
<p>If you’re interested in the subject, some of the best works on Old Television include <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/734879.Television?from_search=true&search_version=service">Television</a>, by Raymond Williams, and <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/761142.Echographies_of_Television?ac=1&from_search=true">Echographies of Television</a>, adapted from the transcript of a televised discussion between Jacques Derrida and Bernard Stiegler. Marshall McLuhan’s chapter in <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/126274.Understanding_Media?from_search=true&search_version=service">Understanding Media</a> is indispensable, and Niklas Luhmann offers a piercing analysis of the industrialisation of media in <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/992346.The_Reality_of_the_Mass_Media?from_search=true&search_version=service">The Reality of the Mass Media</a>. </p>
<p>The canon on New Television is yet to materialise. But can one really be bothered writing books anymore? The pharmacological effects of The Voice and its ilk are, after all, remarkably potent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59060/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
In the age of boutique TV, binge watching, and data drops of entire series, it is easy to forget the dominant function of television: the broadcasting of a stream of advertisements directly into the living…Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Media Studies, University of Notre Dame AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/589302016-05-05T04:12:35Z2016-05-05T04:12:35ZWhy as an Indian-Australian, I’ll be watching Sunday’s Logies for the first time in years<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121321/original/image-20160505-17469-1ndf4a6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As someone who hasn’t watched the Logies in years, I’ll tune in this Sunday to cheer on <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/lee-lin-chin-waleed-aly-among-gold-logie-nominees-20160403-gnx9vu.html">Waleed Aly and Lee Lin Chin</a>. First and foremost, because they are outstanding examples of media excellence. But also because they give me hope that our accolades are open to all, and that Australians can learn to embrace diversity in their media a little bit more.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121311/original/image-20160505-27756-1gibok8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121311/original/image-20160505-27756-1gibok8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121311/original/image-20160505-27756-1gibok8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1018&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121311/original/image-20160505-27756-1gibok8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1018&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121311/original/image-20160505-27756-1gibok8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1018&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121311/original/image-20160505-27756-1gibok8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1279&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121311/original/image-20160505-27756-1gibok8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1279&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121311/original/image-20160505-27756-1gibok8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1279&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lee Lin Chine at last year’s Logie awards.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tracey Nearmy/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Race in the media is a sensitive issue and we urgently need more diverse faces on our screens, more accents on our airwaves and a more accurate representation of the Australian population.</p>
<p>When Karl Stefanovic quipped that Lisa Wilkinson was <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/05/today-presenter-jokes-lisa-wilkinson-too-white-logies">“too white"’ to be nominated for a Logie</a>, it became clear that our bias isn’t even subconscious. His comment was particularly disappointing, given that Stefanovic once sounded off about whitewashing on television, declaring that ”<a href="http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/karl-stefanovic-sounds-off-on-aussie-tv-whitewashing-white-people-are-pretty-bland/news-story/123935300b18c5a1fd8f6cad6b6dd871">white people are pretty bland</a>“. </p>
<p>As an Indian-Australian, I once pursued a career in drama and media, and found the bias to be all too evident. Casting calls for extras and auditions for television commercials constantly ended with me heading home early, being told I’d draw too much attention because of my ethic looks. At one audition I was told: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’ll be hard to fit you into the story, as there’s no reason for an Indian to be there.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>When I tried my hand at television presenting, the trainers at a commercial channel told me I "screamed SBS”, and encouraged me to pursue roles over there. Of course, I found instant success for roles that required my cultural stereotype, such as any ad for an Indian cooking product or Subway’s Chicken Tikka Sub.</p>
<p>Theatre was no different. Outside of community theatre, when the stakes got higher, directors would question their need for racially diverse actors. One explained to me that casting a “black Ophelia” would be making a political statement he didn’t wish to make.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121320/original/image-20160505-17469-1by35vd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121320/original/image-20160505-17469-1by35vd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/121320/original/image-20160505-17469-1by35vd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121320/original/image-20160505-17469-1by35vd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121320/original/image-20160505-17469-1by35vd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121320/original/image-20160505-17469-1by35vd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121320/original/image-20160505-17469-1by35vd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/121320/original/image-20160505-17469-1by35vd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Faustina Agolley.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">via IMDB</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I’m not going to blame my lack of media success on race. I had other interests and made an early decision to pursue a different career path. Frankly, I lacked the tenacity and the talent to make a go of it. I also know it’s not impossible for ethnically diverse Australians to make it on air. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3376906/">Yumi Stynes</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1884762/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1">Faustina “Fuzzy” Agolley</a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0481092/">Jay Laga’aia</a> were all fantastic role models, particularly in the youth media sector.</p>
<p>But the fact remains that you can still watch an evening of television and be confronted by wall to wall whiteness that doesn’t represent the Australia of today. This is a stark contrast to British, American or Canadian television, where people from a wide range of racial backgrounds are regularly featured on air, with no justification needed for their inclusion. The viewing audience doesn’t bat an eyelid because the casting is so regularly inclusive.</p>
<p>The media agenda filters down. Despite having lived in Australia my entire life, I’m regularly asked where I’m “really from”, more so here than in the countries previously mentioned. </p>
<p>Our concept of Australian-ness is a very white one, in part because different skin tones, accents and dress codes aren’t presented as being the norm. Casting agents continually seek an “Australian look”, which is inherently Anglo-Saxon. Therefore anyone outside of that frame must be from somewhere else, and is unconsciously othered.</p>
<p>The media has a greater reach that we can imagine. As much as we consider ourselves a multicultural society, dominant ethic groups often have limited direct contact with people from <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/NIRV.pdf">marginalised racial groups</a> As a result, much of the information that Australians hold about marginalised groups comes from the mainstream media.</p>
<p>What television producers might term “good casting” can be downright dangerous. If <a href="http://www.damienriggs.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-terms-on-which.pdf">Indigenous Australians</a> and refugees are presented as violent, threatening or unruly (as was found in numerous studies), next to white people cast as intelligible newsreaders, contented families or orderly citizens, it sends a disturbing message that some groups should be feared or avoided. </p>
<p>If the media avoids diverse accents, it contributes to the stereotype that people from diverse language groups are uneducated or can’t speak English.</p>
<p>This week, the new ABC boss, Michelle Guthrie used her first official day in the job to announce that she’d push for <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/abc-radio-staff-told-to-put-people-with-difficult-accents-on-air-20160502-gokjsh.html">more diversity on the public broadcaster</a>.</p>
<p>Reading over my shoulder, a colleague said to me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“How ridiculous. Why would I want to hear more accents on air?”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is precisely the reason why.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58930/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachael Jacobs is a member of The Greens</span></em></p>Doing ads for Chicken Tikka subs. Being told you ‘scream SBS’. When you’ve experienced the white bias of our cultural industries, watching Waleed Aly and Lee Lin Chin vie for the Gold Logie is a delicious prospect.Rachael Jacobs, Senior Lecturer in Arts Education , Australian Catholic UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/374072015-02-12T20:45:12Z2015-02-12T20:45:12ZCalls for clear political narratives ultimately demand greater honesty<p>Whenever an Australian government runs into trouble we hear calls for a clearer narrative. The latest contribution comes in a <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/comment/coalition-needs-a-heart-transplant-not-a-facelift-20150205-136hjx.html">thoughtful article</a> from Waleed Aly.</p>
<p>Aly points to the similar undermining of our last three prime ministers, all of whom seemed unable to combine public trust with the respect of their colleagues. And all of whom, he argues, sacrificed principles for short-term expediency.</p>
<p>Tony Abbott won office because of the seeming dysfunction of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, having held his party together through the repetition of simplistic slogans and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/abbott-promises-no-cuts-to-education-health/5436224">promises to maintain government programs</a>, which are now under threat.</p>
<p>This tactic has paid off handsomely for oppositions across the country. The exception is the South Australian Liberals, who failed to unseat the <a href="https://theconversation.com/labor-lives-to-fight-another-day-in-south-australia-24222">Labor government</a> last year. It follows the pattern across Western democracies; the only major political survivor is German Chancellor <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/ten-reasons-angela-merkel-germany-chancellor-world-most-powerful-woman">Angela Merkel</a>, who has held office since 2005.</p>
<p>Such longevity now seems almost an aberration; maybe many Australians support the monarchy from a sense that it survives the short-term nature of the political process. Calls for a convincing narrative are common across the Western world, as traditional political parties struggle to reposition themselves in a rapidly changing environment.</p>
<h2>Parties struggle for consistency</h2>
<p>Australian political parties emerged as essentially class-based. Labor, centred in the unionised workforce, faced a series of conservative parties representing business, which were able to appeal to those who identified as middle class and maintain an alliance with the rural-based Nationals. Since the Second World War no minor parties have been able to break the dominant story of politics as built around class and the role of the state, though the Greens have come closest.</p>
<p>As the workforce has changed radically – more women, fewer blue-collar workers, an expansion of service jobs and small businesses – so too has the nature of political discourse. An increasingly complex society demands more of the state while the dominant language of neoliberalism means constant pressure to reduce taxes and the ability of governments to deliver.</p>
<p>The Hawke-Keating Labor governments introduced a number of neoliberal measures, but with some concern to maintain safety nets and keep the union movement on side. The Howard Coalition government was able to introduce a GST, one of the most far-reaching tax reforms of the past few decades. But it <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/09/21/south-korea-versus-australia-our-pathetic-savings-record/?wpmp_switcher=mobile">squandered much of the gain</a> from the minerals boom in unnecessary perks for well-off voters.</p>
<p>The call for new narratives is in effect a call for greater honesty about the role of the state. Treasurer Joe Hockey touched on this when <a href="https://theconversation.com/hockeys-first-budget-redefines-the-role-of-government-in-australia-26573">he declared</a> the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-end-of-the-age-of-entitlement-20120419-1x8vj.html">“age of entitlement”</a> over. Yet he then failed to acknowledge that a balanced budget requires far greater cuts to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-cut-fairly-commission-of-audit-should-look-at-tax-expenditures-23769">benefits built into our tax system</a> – for example, superannuation tax breaks and negative gearing – than his constituency would wear.</p>
<h2>Reducing the big issues to individual impact</h2>
<p>Thirty years of neoliberal rhetoric has poisoned political discussion, by reducing major issues to immediate impact on individual incomes. Abbott’s sustained <a href="https://theconversation.com/abbotts-big-victory-on-carbon-tax-has-a-tart-taste-29327">attack on the carbon tax</a>, which was designed to help combat climate change, drowned out sensible discussion of the bigger issues. </p>
<p>Labor is following suit in not acknowledging that to maintain and improve government programs will require a major overhaul of taxation. While the Gillard government took some important steps towards shifting the balance, particularly through the national disability scheme and greater funding for schools, she failed to explain clearly that this would require greater government revenue.</p>
<p>The current Coalition government has sought to spell out the costs, but its solutions are so clearly short term and biased in favour of the well-off that they have backfired.</p>
<p>Menzies and Howard benefited from a growing economy, which allowed them to satisfy their supporters without inflicting too much pain. With an ageing population and a slowing global economy, it is less clear how a party deeply connected with the interests of business can retract some of its most unpopular promises and pay for increasing demands on government.</p>
<p>A Labor narrative would involve a coherent defence of the continuing role of the state. This would be, in effect, a return to the ALP’s social democratic roots (as Andrew Scott <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-can-learn-a-lot-about-public-policy-from-the-nordic-nations-32204">has argued</a> in his book <a href="http://www.challengemagazine.com.au/northern_lights_the_positive_policy_example_of_sweden_finland_denmark_and_norway">Northern Lights</a>). Not only has the ALP ceded important moral ground to the Greens – especially in the case of asylum seekers – but the party has failed to construct a meaningful story about creating a better society which voters might trust.</p>
<p>For both sides a better narrative means more than a set of specific policies and promises of government savings and reform. It means restoring trust in the ability of government to deliver what we cannot deliver for ourselves. And that requires a defence of the public sphere, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-price-the-public-good-when-governing-parties-bow-to-markets-37046">neither side seems able to articulate</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Other articles in The Conversation’s ongoing series, “New Politics”, can be read <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/new-politics">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37407/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dennis Altman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Whenever an Australian government runs into trouble we hear calls for a clearer narrative. The latest contribution comes in a thoughtful article from Waleed Aly. Aly points to the similar undermining of…Dennis Altman, Professorial Fellow in Human Security, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.