notice chasers also picked up on $2.40 /ML water
funniest (bravest ?) I thought was offering Hillary Clinton a cigar
(PS agree entirely about Barrie Cassidy , and versatile - equally at home with politics and sport , Insiders / Outsiders / Offsiders etc - guess you've gotta be multi dexterous to keep a job in the ABC these days. )
I actually felt uncomfortable about the cigar thing with Hillary Clinton.
It's fine to throw off at politicians about what they themselves do, but that whole tawdry affair with Lewinski must have been really hurtful to Hillary and I thought they went too far with that one.
notice chasers also picked up on $2.40 /ML water
funniest (bravest ?) I thought was offering Hillary Clinton a cigar
yep overtones of some of Norm Gunston's interviews (asking the Sumo wrestler why he wore a nappy etcI rated the bra boys bit pretty highly for bravery. No way would this young professor be carrying on like that
The sinners accepting the apple was funny, and Chaz trying to get a job was good too. The loud train commuter this week wasn't funny at all.
The scattering of ashes by Chris had me in stitches...Hungry Jacks telling him to scatter them on the mat 'over there'! or in the pool with the swimmer telling him where to go.
LISA MILLAR: Now to Britain's former ambassador to the UN Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who played a key role in the international drama over Iraq that ended in war. ... to help rebuild the country and establish a government. The career diplomat is regarded by many to have impeccable integrity, but he's frank about the current situation ....
LM: violence in Iraq, .....in the supposedly safe Green Zone, must shock even the most hardened of observers.
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Yes, I think that this is a bad moment but that we've had a lot of bad moments in Iraq. The violence has got progressively worse. I think that's a sign of the way in which the coalition have got things wrong and the Iraqi governments have got things wrong.
It's also a sign, remember, of the brutality and senselessness of the people who are doing these things. We don't know what they want or what their purpose is. They just want to kill and maim and create disorder. And they're the enemies of Iraq as well. They're hurting Iraqis now, not the coalition.
LM: .. perhaps it was a bodyguard of a Sunni MP. ?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, there are people who are looking for an excuse to hit another sect or people they don't identify with. And gossip and rumour and imagination are playing a pretty horrible role in Iraq throughout this crisis. So there will be people who react to that and there will be other people, I hope, who say, look, we must stand above this. This is going to happen now and again, but unless we stay calm, unless we start getting things right together, we will never create the country that we want.
So, I hope that there is going to be a serious reaction to this and not just a mindless one.
LM: Well this surely is going to be seen as a particularly low point..?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: I would say the attack on the Samarra mosque in February 2006 was a worse moment, because it was much more symbolic than this. The original assassinations of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al Hakim in August 2003, the clerical leader of moderate Iraq and of Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN representative in the same month, were probably more damaging to Iraq at a more crucial time.
LM: ...it comes two months after the start of this new surge in troops from the US? I mean, does it give an indication that that is already failing?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: No. You must not judge Iraq by the latest incident. There are many people who are doing the damage here, a lot of Iraqis have been affected but there are a lot of Iraqis who want to get their country into a better state and they're not going be disheartened by just the latest incident. I reckon we've got years of violence to come in Iraq, you've got to expect many more incidents like this in the heart of where it matters. And Iraq has got to survive these, these nasty moments. They've got to move on and keep going.
LM: How do they move on? What is the way forward?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well I think three things. I mean, obviously law and order is necessary and in the end that's got to be provided by Iraqis,
..
Second, they need politicians to work together and not just for their own sect ,..
And third, I think we've got to have help for Iraq from the neighbours. Iraq can no longer just do it for itself. ..perhaps with the UN, ...
LISA MILLAR: Do you include Iran in that category?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Absolutely.... And Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Well, Iran has got to start thinking, what is our role, what is our responsibility, what are our interests when the Americans have gone?
LISA MILLAR: Well, what is Iran doing now, do you think?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Iran is playing a role in some of the violence but not most of it. Most of it now is inter-sectarian and Iraqi grown. Where Iran wants to turn the heat up, it can do so in various ways. It's been feeding money, men and materials into the violence since 2003. We've caught them doing it in some incidences.
LM: What's its aim?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: ... An understanding, they hope, on the American side that they can't do this in any neighbouring country and won't try. I'm not sure they're right about that but that's what they want to create. They also want an Iraq that in the end is a friendly neighbour that they trade with, that won't attack them again in a bilateral war. ...
LISA MILLAR: Well, we've heard the warnings that they are close to having a nuclear bomb. ..
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: I believe, with a lot of other people, they're trying. I don't think they're close yet. ...
I don't think they've finally chosen whether to create a weapon because that's a very dangerous moment for them. They've sworn blind for years that they're not doing that. .. If they do do that, they've broken their word, they're pariahs, they will be punished by the international community ..
..
LM: ...What is the exit strategy?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: ... The best exit strategy is to get your entry right in the first place and to be doing a difficult task with the right analysis and the right resources and the right tactics. And I think the coalition on the whole failed to do that in 2003, 2004. So they closed their own exit door by entering in the wrong way. I've never believed that there should be a set time for exit because you don't know what conditions you're setting by your exit.
LISA MILLAR: So timetables, you don't want to hear about it?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: I'd rather hear about the conditions. I think it's true now we can't stay as a coalition very much longer. I think American public opinion won't stomach that much beyond 2009, 2010. So, the next president is going to have to make hard decisions on this. The American election may be partly about this, as we are beginning to see.
LISA MILLAR: Well how does that complicate it, having a US presidential, a crucial US presidential campaign under way already, how does that complicate what we're going to see in Iraq?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, it is very unusual for a domestic election in any country to be mainly about a foreign policy issue. I think this time it is going to be partly, it won't be wholly, but partly about Iraq. ...
LISA MILLAR: What's the cost if that happens? If the Democrats win the White House and they say, we're withdrawing the troops now, what's the cost?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: I think that's quite a good question, 'cause I'm not sure that Americans have really worked out that cost. The gain is you get your boys and girls, indeed, home and you stop spend that enormous sum of money that the Americans are spending. But ...You've been defeated on something that was - you've said - was very important for you. ... credibility .. Terrorism will be motivated. There will be a territory in Iraq where terrorists have learnt battle-hardened techniques they can take elsewhere. I think the American public need to understand, and perhaps this is true of Britain and Australia as well, that we do have a dog in this fight which is the security of our interests around the world in the future beyond Iraq, beyond Iraq and Iran. And we need to look to that.
LISA MILLAR: So Jeremy is there any way the Bush Administration can retrieve the situation?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: In some ways no, because very big mistakes have been made and they've been well-documented and indeed almost apologised for up to this point.
I don't think that they can mend those mistakes without a huge reinjection of resources and that is no longer possible domestically in our countries - including the United States - or amongst Iraqis who want the coalition forces to leave. So what we've created is something that we will have to walk away from at some point with the job only a quarter or half done. But we must then continue to support Iraq and Iraqis who want a united country at peace with itself and we need to support the neighbours, or encourage the neighbours, to give encouragement and support to Iraqis themselves so that the violence doesn't spill over into them. They've got a stake in this fight as well.
LISA MILLAR: You've played such a huge role at the UN winning support for the war in Iraq. Do you regret that role?
SIR JEREMY GREENSTOCK: Well, you've misdescribed it a little bit, Lisa, because I wasn't trying to win support for a war, I was trying to find a route of bringing Saddam to realise he couldn't continue as he was without a war. That's what Tony Blair wanted to do. And I was trying to get a basis of the UN in the Security Council of unanimity, of pressure on Saddam to give up before he was hit with an invasion. And that failed. We had the basis for military action in the first resolution in November 2002. I couldn't get agreement to go in a different direction in a second resolution. I don't regret it that I tried. I'm sorry we failed as the UK, leading that particular effort. I don't think we got the full support of the United States for trying to do that. They were committed to a war and we were pulled along with them. But I don't regret that I tried that, no. We did our best.
PETER CAVE: Since 1982, American governments have spent more than $1.3 billion promoting sexual abstinence outside marriage as the answer to unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases amongst young people.
The program has been a central plank of George Bush's social policy.
But a six-year study commissioned by the US Congress, just released, has found those who took part these chastity programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not.
William Smith, the Vice President of the Sexuality, Information and Education Council of the United States, has welcomed the findings, describing the programs and promotion of them to nations dependent on the US for aid as "insanity".
Mr Smith is in Sydney to address the World Congress for Sexual Health. He spoke to PM's Sabra Lane.
WILLIAM SMITH: This was a major, very sound study, paid for actually by the Federal Government. So it was their own commissioned study that found that what was about half a billion dollars invested had no impact whatsoever.
And that's an incredibly important piece of what we hope is a final verdict that puts these types of programs out of business.
The other important piece is that there were also 13 states in the US that also evaluated their programs funded with these exact same dollars and they also found no impact.
SABRA LANE: For the Australian audience listening, what are these programs all about?
WILLIAM SMITH: These programs are all about denying young people information about condoms and contraception.
Telling them that the only way that they're ever going to have sex is if they go and get married. And that somehow marriage is the panacea for a better life - you'll make more money, you'll be happier; you're less likely to commit suicide; your children are going to be much, much better off.
It is an entirely ideological subset of issues being pushed by a far right-wing in our country. That's what these programs are about.
SABRA LANE: The study that came out on Friday found that the kids who had the abstinence before marriage programs compared with kids that didn't have those programs, there was absolutely no difference. They had sex at the same age, the same number of partners. What are some of the other findings?
WILLIAM SMITH: Those are the key ones. They had sex with the exact same number of people as people who didn't get the abstinence only until marriage intervention. They transitioned to sex at the same time. And those programs had absolutely no impact.
And you know, that's a half a billion dollars that could have been spent on programs that work, because we know what works. What works is teaching abstinence within the context of a more comprehensive approach. And young people have much, much better outcomes when that happens.
SABRA LANE: This has been, as you talked about in your speech, it's been a major policy platform in the United States for the last 20, 30 years.
WILLIAM SMITH: A major… a major platform. Both politically, the Bush administration has really invested a lot of time and energy in promoting these programs, but also the right-wing in our country, in particular James Dobson who's a very prominent extreme social conservative recently said that abstinence only until marriage is one of the three major issues of our time. So there's a lot riding on this for them.
SABRA LANE: What does it say too about a country that has a philosophy built around this kind of policy in an era of HIV and AIDS?
WILLIAM SMITH: What it says is that the current administration should really be ashamed of themselves. Because this is also been exported through a lot of our development assistance to countries where there are populations where 30 per cent of the population has HIV and they're denying information about condoms and contraception to people like that. And that is insanity.
That is so far from public health. And so deeply entrenched in a moral and religious vision that most of the American people simply do not share.
SABRA LANE: Do you think your country will see change now that you've got evidence that these programs don't work?
WILLIAM SMITH: The evidence helps. But this has been and will continue to be a political issue in our country.
I do believe that the cracks are in the foundation on these programs in our country and I do believe change is on the way both for us and through those countries who are receiving development assistance from us.
SABRA LANE: What is the alternative?
WILLIAM SMITH: The alternative is to invest in comprehensive programs, and by that I mean programs that talk about abstinence; I always say abstinence should be the first, second, third and last thing out of our mouths; it just shouldn't be the only thing.
Those are the programs that work. And we're going to be quickly trying to shift money to those types of interventions.
PETER CAVE: William Smith, the Vice President of America's Sexuality, Information and Education Council, speaking to Sabra Lane.
great satirical humour 2020!!!!!
Journalists code of ethics - an oxymoron?
Most media journalists belong to the Australian Journalists Association, a division of a trade union called the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA). Members are required to follow a code of ethics (shown in full below).
What if they breach the code?
You can lodge a complaint with the Judiciary Committee of the MEAA. A panel of five journalists will hear your complaint.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome you may lodge an appeal with the Appeals Committee - a panel of three journalists.
If you still have not received justice you lodge an appeal with the National Appeals Committee. It consists of a panel of - you guessed it - five journalists.
The media proprietors also have their own cosy self-protection club called the Australian Press Council. They have a similar mechanism for dealing with complaints. The AJA withdrew their support from the Press Council some years ago, according to Bev East, Industrial Officer for the MEAA, Perth because "they didn't really do anything. They just warned people and that was it".
________________________________________
AJA CODE OF ETHICS
Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to
• Honesty
• Fairness
• Independence
• Respect for the rights of others
1. 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.
2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability.
3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances.
4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence.
5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain.
6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence.
7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories.
8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice.
9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed.
10. Do not plagiarise.
11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude.
12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors.
Guidance Clause
Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.
Last weeks Media Watch also highlighted his numerous upcoming legal difficulties / court appearances etc.What a rank amateur compared to the ABA's favourite broadcaster Alan Jones.
Alan Jones: Treasurer do you ever shake your head during campaigns like this and wonder what it’s all about? Because you have been there for eight years, you have created 1.3 million new jobs. You've seen savings of more than $500 a month on interest repayments on the average home loan since you’ve been Treasurer, you’ve cut the debt from $95 billion to $27 billion, you've taken the average inflation rate from about five and a bit per cent to two and a bit, you've have taken the average interest rate, average, from 12.7 per cent to 7…
-Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 2GB, 23 September, 2004
-Listen »
It's supposed to be an interview but treasurer Peter Costello really didn't need to be there as Alan went on and on and on –
Now in all that catalogue the cry is - “We will get rid of Costello and Howard”. Do you ever shake your head and wonder what’s going on?
-Alan Jones Breakfast Show, 2GB, 23 September, 2004
-Listen »
Do you ever shake your head and wonder how a political stooge like Jones gets away with this rubbish?
Labor to buy advertising time in Alan Jones’ opinions
The ALP is considering a bid to advertise itself in the opinions of top-rating breakfast host and Today show mouthpiece Alan Jones. Though Jones has long been known as a supporter of the Liberal Party, history shows he’s always willing to reconsider a firmly-held opinion for a price.
But Jones’ support for Labor won’t come cheaply. Telstra was forced to sponsor his show to the tune of $1.2 million before Jones’ criticisms of the telco coincidentally stopped.
CRAIG: Can we just have a look at the seat of Jones?
JULIAN: Sure, no stranger to pork barrelling, Jones… and as we saw last week it’s strongly Liberal, and a crucial seat for the Libs to hold onto.
ANDREW: Well, there’s an old maxim that says – if you win Jones, you’ll win the election.
JULIAN: It has been known to swing a little. In fact, you’ll recall it used to be extremely pro-Optus at one point… but latelywe’ve seen a massive swing to Telstra after an injection of $1.2 million dollars.
CHRIS: Well, Howard really mustn’t take Jones for granted. It’s not out of the question that it could switch to Labor – assuming they threw enough money at it. What you’ve got to ask though – does the Labor Party really need Jones, given they’ve got so many other good communicators in the party.
JULIAN: In fact, if we have a look at Crean’s record… as party leader, his approval rating sank to 14%, and when he was ACTU President, real wages plummeted.
ANDREW: Look, it’s true and Mark came to me a few months ago and said “what do I do about Simon”? And I said, “Mate, look at Simon’s CV”. He’s not a leader. The bulk of his career he’s been deputy, assistant, vice. That’s his strength. Simon is a born deputy.
CHRIS: Yes, he plays a brilliant second fiddle.
JULIAN: He’s Australia’s number one number two.
Curtin was a good watch tonight
William McInnes, Noni Hazelhurst, Geoff Morrell (as Chifley) - top show well presented, well done aunty
If you missed it, I recommend you get to see it next time. Great wartime history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?