Journalism can never be silent
October 2011
12 posts
“
“Young people are pleased that our Parliament has taken the first step in protecting our future,” said Ellen Sandell, national director of the coalition, which is the country’s largest youth-led organisation with more than 65,000 members.
“Today’s legislation is not the perfect solution, but it marks an important moment when Australia joins over 30 other countries who have a carbon price. Now young people will be looking to the next steps that will move us to 100 per cent renewable energy.”
” —Carbon Tax passes House of Representatives | The Telegraph, October 12, 2011.
“They’re certainly entitled to think that, and they’re entitled to full respect for their opinions… but before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself. The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”
—To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee (via petrichorstars)
“
What ever happened to quality science reporting in the mainstream media? Why do so many journalists seem to simply accept press releases as fact? Are qualifications no longer relevant when it comes to journalistic scrutiny of science? Perhaps there’s no longer any scrutiny? Let’s be clear: there is NO Yeti!
The people claiming there is such a creature have no idea about science or the evidence that would be needed to convince scientists that a Yeti, or Bigfoot, or Yowie, or what ever you call it, exists!
” —Media puts its Bigfoot in it Yeti again: it’s abominable | Darren Curnoe | The Conversation, 07th October 2011
“
So what do we mean by “underwater cultural heritage”? Well, the 2001 Convention defines it as “all traces of human existence having a historical or archaeological character that have been partially or totally underwater for at least 100 years”.
This includes prehistoric sites, shipwrecks, aircraft, artefacts, human remains, shipyards, jetties, wharves, docks, submerged buildings and towns, together with their archaeological and natural context. Underwater cultural heritage sites can be found in rivers, lakes, springs, bays and, of course, at sea.
Archaeology is the study of past human activities and cultures through the material left behind. Archaeologists are not interested in the artefacts themselves, but rather what those objects and the relationships between them can tell us about the people who made and used them.
Maritime archaeology is about more than selling silver. Legitimate, professional archaeologists do not engage in the buying, selling, or valuing of artefacts. Contrast this with the attitude of Andrew Craig, senior project manager at Odyssey Marine, who spoke about the find on ABC Radio National Breakfast this morning:
“It’s huge for us … we just can’t wait to get going on it and get it [the silver] up on to the deck of the boat and actually monetise it.”
Recovery of artefacts for commercial exploitation (treasure hunting) is considered unethical and detrimental to maritime archaeology and to humanity as a whole.
Treasure hunters sometimes try to give their endeavours a veneer of respectability by stating they are “using archaeological methods” or are “employing an archaeologist to oversee the project.”
Although their press releases may use the correct archaeological “buzz words,” if artefacts are being recovered for sale, or will end up dispersed into private collections as payment for investing, it is not archaeology, no matter the tools or technology used, or the credentials of the “archaeologist” employed.
” —- Mark Staniforth | Sunken Ship yields silver booty, but should we let sleeping wrecks lie? | The Conversation, September 27th 2011.
The extended definition of “underwater cultural heritage” can be found here.
Andrew Craig’s conversation with ABC Radio National can be heard here.
Further information on the ethics of maritime archaeology can be found here.
Odyssey’s press release can be found here.
Scare Campaigning.
Scare campaigning is something we should all be used to. Whenever a policy plan gets announced, there will always be people opposed to it. And they will try and convince us that we’re opposed to it too. One of the ‘clever’ ways that this is done is through fear, showing us all how we will be affected by this new policy. It happens on both sides of politics, but is becoming more common as we sit in this tense political climate. It would seem that every time Labor suggest anything be done, Liberal have one word in reply ‘no’. They then go on to somewhat explain their answer, an explanation which generally consists of ‘families will be worse off. THINK OF THE FAMILIES, they cry.
When discussing the Carbon Tax, all that seems to come from Tony Abbott’s mouth can be summised in this following quote : “no but families will be worse off small businesses no average australian economic turmoil no no no.” So, excellent, he’s got our best interests in mind. That’s what he’s trying to scare us into thinking. But does he know the facts? If people weren’t so intent on listening to what he has to say, and actually stopped to find out what the Carbon Tax really was, I’m sure approval would go up. What I’m also sure of is that Abbott is just intent on becoming PM as early as he can, and is using this scare tactic as a way of booting Labor out, somehow.
When it comes to fear campaigns, nothing is bigger right now than the opposition to Plain Packaging for Cigarettes. Unsurprisingly, the tobacco companies have come out swinging. But this time, well honestly, it’s just plain funny. Tobacco companies are suggesting that these laws are a bad idea because they will lose money through a loss of sales. Well, thanks captain obvious, but that’s the point. To, you know, stop people buying them. Yet people are running with this! Or, doing the opposite, and saying it won’t curb smoking. Haven’t the companies that make the product just proven it will work?
The same happened with the Minerals Resource Rent Tax. In fact, I can’t remember anything Labor have announced they want to do without some sort of scare coming from the otherside. I’m not at all trying to say that it’s exclusive to Liberals, but I am getting damn sick of it. We don’t see any actual discussion on policy. Instead, we get scenes that resemble the bitchiness of lunch at an all girls school. It’s slowly becoming more and more detrimental to anyone’s attempts at actually getting a policy through, and is becoming more and more malicious. Surely I’m not the only one who wants to slap Abbott in the face and tell him to do something constructive.
Soup: Some thoughts on Occupy Wall Street →
soupsoup.tumblr.com
I spent a few hours down there tonight.
The crowd is diverse, not as predominately young as I perceived from afar. They’re well organized, they have places set up for medics, food, media, etc. The General Assembly hosts a wide variety of speakers, of all ages, gender, race and socio-economic…
