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.

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?