Politics 101: How to Win Votes

Did you notice it's almost election time? There's a new-found urgency to fulfill forgotten promises. Innovative name-calling is peaking. Plus the mudslinging is in overdrive. Politics is in the air. So much seems to be happening in the country all of a sudden – it’s Mr. Random Politician’s way of bringing in the votes from every possible demographic. If you are an aspiring politician, these are some pretty great role models to look up to and draw inspiration from. Here are the top vote-winning ideas drawn from campaigning efforts over the last couple of days:

• Need the tree-hugging environmentalist vote? Taking legal action against the Japanese is the way to go. Calling the Opposition a few names while you’re at it will always win you a few extra points too.
   
• Looking for the naturalized citizen vote? Easy…make them believe the leading parties are both xenophobic – that should get you a more “colourful” vote. Kill two birds with the same stone – win the paranoid, hysterical bogan vote too – convince them that diverting boats to Christmas Island and denying refuge is what is best for Australia. What a great issue! Any party can spin it any which way they like and still win votes from someone somewhere in Australia. Win-win! Don’t worry Mr. Random Politician – we love it that you believe, us Australians don’t really know anything about human rights anyway so you’ll be right.
   
• Know what makes Australians angry? Making false promises related to sport & sporting venues. If you're the Opposition, get smart and use this to your advantage and remind people how they were denied their AFL stadium. That should get you some testosterone-charged votes. Easy done.
  
  
• Introducing a new tax but worried that people might figure out it may do more harm than good? No worries - simply spend millions of taxpayer dollars to advertise the awesomeness of it because it is such an "urgent" issue after all. Go a step further - tug at the heartstrings by making like it's all in "public interest".
  
  
• And if all else fails, do it Stephen Conroy style – convincing people how stupid they are and how much smarter he is for trying so hard to protect them from the big bad world by censoring their internet and pointing fingers at anyone who might raise an eyebrow.

For more ideas on political campaigning and how to win votes, simply read the news everyday. Mr. Random Politician will come up with ingenious new ideas every day, I promise you.

Ninemsn: Spot the News

Its 7:00 pm on the 4th of May 2010. Some pretty amazing things have happened today. Not to me, but just around the world - you know the kind of stuff that usually qualifies as news, often even grabbing headlines on some sites. And then there's Ninemsn.

The headline on Ninemsn right now? Some twit's tweets about another twit. Exciting stuff.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

1. There were earthquakes in Chile & Haiti, again.
2. Stephen Conroy ups the ante on being ridiculous.
3. Pakistan gets famous not once, but twice in one day!
4. Reserve Bank of Australia announces another interest rate rise.
5. The French rush to rescue the Greek.

I'm not saying this news doesn't feature on Ninemsn at all. It's hidden somewhere in the back, behind the more important things like you know, The Simpsons do Kesha or important "hot topics" like a mass murderer's gold coffin. If not there's always a pre-pubescent "sensation" and his penchant for talentless fame hungry i-have-no-career-so-i-put-my-life-on-tv "celebrities" to report on.

Oh wait, ignore that. I had Ninemsn confused for a news website. My bad.

Who cares?

Apathy. That’s the real problem the 21st century faces.

War is not the problem. The problem is not caring enough about peace.

The West is not the problem; neither is the Middle East. The problem is being indifferent to each other’s concerns.

Politicians aren’t the problem. The problem is not caring enough to vote.

Terrorism is not the problem. The problem is being indifferent to another person’s right to live.

Censorship, government watchdogs and nanny states are not the problem. The problem is being too apathetic to protest.

Racism isn’t the problem. The problem is not caring about another person’s right to have an identity different to your own.

The media isn’t the problem. The problem is not caring enough about the “real” reality and preferring to live life, second hand, viewing the world through rose-tinted glasses.

Illiteracy is not the problem. The problem is being indifferent to one’s own ignorance.

Religion is not the problem. The problem is being apathetic to another person’s faith, or lack thereof.

“They” are not the problem. The problem is You and Me not caring enough, not caring at all.

Two Sides of the Same Coin?

In the past few months Australia and Australians have been painted as villains by the Indian media due to the "attacks" on Indian students. What has amazed me in these past few months is that the Indian media has obsessively clung on to this story and (mis?) represented the same story over and over again. I am convinced there are plenty of worthy issues to be discussed so I don't understand why the Indian media is obsessively picking on Australia? Also, it never ceases to amaze me that not one media outlet has attempted to think outside the box and represent a different angle to the story... an angle that possibly represents people like me who do not think Australia has victimized them and are quite happy being here?


The reason I bring this up is because of this article in the Sydney Morning Herald which speaks of Australia's commitment to provide better protection to international students; in particular Indian students. The article also discusses a survey by student placement organisation IDP Education. IDP surveyed over 6000 international students across Australia and Australia ranked number one as far as student safety is concerned. The survey also says these students ranked Sydney and Melbourne as the "most unfriendly and unsafe" Australian cities.


My first instinct was to find out a little more about what the Indian media had to say about this because I had a feeling it would be represented completely differently. And I was right. This article in the India Today is captioned 'Sydney, Melbourne voted 'most unsafe' cities'.


I have never been to Melbourne and Sydney so I am probably not completely qualified to comment on their "unsafe and unfriendly" reputation. But I'd just like to say, these are the two biggest cities in Australia so like any other big city anywhere in the world (including Delhi and Mumbai), the big city tag brings a degree of unfriendliness and danger with it... so I personally don't think it's that big a deal if Sydney and Melbourne are described as unsafe. I'm sure the same could be said of Delhi. Or London. Or New York.


I looked up the IDP Education website and couldn't find much of the original information related to this survey. I am assuming the survey was distributed to the Indian & Australian media via a press release and each then represented the story in the way they thought would make the "best" news. What I don't understand is, for all the positive things the survey says about Australia, why did the India Today pick on the one negative thing? I haven't checked on what other Indian newspapers or magazines are saying so I'm only discussing the India Today here.


There are thousands of Indians in Australia and at the moment Indians love to hate Australia (and it's not just for the cricket anymore).With the Indian media overdosing on its 'Australia-is-the-worst-place-to-be' rants, most Indians who don't know any better will obviously believe what the press has to say. Many of these people have children or other relatives in Australia and it doesn't help that the Indian media insists on telling them that their children are in an "unsafe" country. Instead of further fanning the flames, a responsible media organisation could take this opportunity to present a more realistic picture of what Australia really is like for an international student (Indians inclusive).


Instead of focussing on the "unsafe and unfriendly" aspect of the survey, a leading news magazine like the India Today could have used this opportunity to calm down the general hysterics of the Indian media.The survey clearly states Australia is the winner when it comes to student safety, so why is it that the India Today prefers to have a headline that sensationalises the apparently unsafe aspects, when it could just have easily chosen a headline which read something like "Survey Declares Australia Safest Country For International Students"?


I don't have the exact statistics but I know a magazine as popular as the India Today is definitely read by many millions across India so an article about the positives of studying in Australia would have been read by lots of people. A survey of 6000 international students found Australia to be the most safe for students... isn't that worth reporting in a country which is in panic mode over Australia? But, for a journalist to write such an article and for a magazine to publish it would mean being brave and going against the tide and I'm sure not many are willing to take that risk.


What I found incredible was that a survey that could have been used to alleviate some of the tension was instead used to create further melodrama in pure tabloid style by a news magazine. At the same time, the story in the SMH reports without opining, discussing not only the Foreign Minister's promise to provide better protection to international students but also the survey complete with details of Australia being safe and Melbourne and Sydney being declared unfriendly. Where the SMH succeeds and the India Today fails is in providing an unbiased, objective report leaving it to the readers to make decisions and form opinions. Must the Indian media so vehemently "defend" Indians that it sacrifices all journalistic integrity?

We are the World

I took a class last semester called 'Journalism Cultures' and it is one of the best classes I've taken at uni, not so much for the content of the course but more for the professor who inspired and encouraged free thinking debate. Unlike the other classes at uni, Journalism Cultures was less about practical skills and more about thinking about the news and journalism and its influence on society and culture. And vice versa.

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because I read this article on a site a friend has recently launched. It reminded me of a very heated debate I had in one of my Journalism Cultures classes. I can't remember exactly how the debate started but it was about the Australian media and its lack of reportage of world issues (USA does not count). I believe the mainstream Australian media is creating incredibly insular Australians. News is seldom news unless it has an Australian angle to it.

I remember a guy in class said he did not think there was anything wrong with it. He said he would not be interested in world issues otherwise. He said, for example, that he was not interested in the Middle East and the war because it did not concern him in any way. The only way he would be interested was if it was related to Australian soldiers. Yes. Pause for shock.

Whether media influences cultures or vice versa is like arguing the chicken and the egg question so we won't go into that. But there is no denying that the mainstream media plays a huge role in influencing the people consuming the media. My classmate's argument proved my point didn't it? Scarily enough, this is one of Australia's future journalists.

An important lesson in journalism is localising the news so it is relevant to the public reading/ watching/ listening to it. But, this in no way means that important world issues should be ignored just because the story has no Australian angle to it. As world citizens, Australians need to know what is going on in the world and the journalists (creators of the media) need to responsibly report the news to its public (consumers of the media).

From the shootings in Mumbai, the earthquakes in Samoa to the blasts in Indonesia - none of these were reported in the Australian media for the magnitude of the news. The news was reported in the Australian media but it mainly talked about how many Australians were affected or if Australians died overseas. Is that really all that matters? News of this magnitude is STILL news irrespective of whether it affects Australians or not.

The Australian media needs to take a more proactive approach as far as it world news reportage is concerned. Since the media plays an important role in influencing the public it needs to do more in creating less ignorant and insular Australians. The Australian media needs to get its head out of the sandbox and take a look around... maybe there is more important news than yet another NRL player getting arrested for drunk driving?

It's the question that drives us, Neo

Should he or shouldn't he?....(have won the Nobel, that is. And that's as far as I'm going with the Matrix reference).

For the last couple of days I have watched the world debate about whether or not Barack Obama deserves the honour and I have unashamedly sat on the fence because for some reason I didn't have any strong opinions about either side of the argument. (Not having strong opinions on a topic that is being talked to death was hard enough to handle.)

I know Americans expect a lot from their President currently and although I do believe Obama will change things for his country and on the international front as well, I do not expect miracles the way many Americans seem to. I believe he will make changes but he is no magic fix. Anyway, so yes I like Obama... but still found it hard to un-objectively (yes I know its not a word) take either side of the Nobel argument.

Choosing a Nobel prize winner is as closely guarded a secret as the choosing of the Pope by the Conclave (possibly more) so there is definitely no way the world is getting its hands on the Obama's Pros and Cons list that the Nobel committee made before they made their decision. This probably infuriates people more than anything. It seems as though if they had access to the inner workings of the minds of the 4 women and 1 man who made the decision, all would be okay again.

Yes, it is very early into his Presidency and I cannot deny that he doesn't have much action to back up his newly forced upon claim to fame but may be a Nobel Peace Prize has become impossible to give because the current generation is far removed from peace on various levels.

Where Obama is lacking in action, he has succeeded in inspiration. True, prizes are not awarded in anticipation of a win but may be there are reasons more convincing? May be Obama deserved to win because no other world leader has inspired a hope for peace the way he has within months of being in office.

I believe our generation does not know the meaning of peace - personal, public, national or international so for a Nobel committee to choose a winner may have been a tough job in itself. May be Obama received it as a Consolation prize for Best Effort but maybe he is not entirely undeserving either. It cannot be denied that the USA is like everybody's big brother so when the world finally realised Obama was the possible cure for the diseased older brother, it cheered - hard and loud (and secretly wished they could vote too!). Such international enthusiasm for a presidential election is unlikely to have ever occured before Obama because Obama wining American votes has symbolised different things to different people from across the world. But most importantly, it has encouraged the world to change their expectations of the USA and Obama has revamped the American image to a great extent... may be his current ability to inspire is proof enough of his poential future ability to become a great leader...and maybe that is what the Norwegians considered when they decided to shake things up a little this year.

Yes, from what I've written here,  I have managed to reveal to myself and to you that I am slightly more partial to the idea of him being worthy of the prize but again, fence-sitting is a joy I don't often tke advantage of so I might change my mind too!

Worthy or not, if Obama didn't already feel the pressure his countrymen were putting on him; now the world too will look at him as the potential miracle maker as well. Failure or success remains to be seen but the journey there just got excruciatingly harder for Obama.

about the blog

Some people want to be doctors, others fashion designers, some farmers and some even want to be politicians. But, all I have ever wanted to be is a journalist. Over the last couple of years, I have worked more in the field of Public Relations and Internet Marketing. Any serious journalist will scoff at me for this and look at me with contempt. I know. But while I have nothing against PR & Marketing, journalism is where my heart lies and this blog is a way for me to rediscover that passion  - whether it be via discussing the news, writing some of my own articles,  talking about journalism and it's importance in the 21st century or simply discussing why I decided to become a journalist.