Oz rebuttals to Manne uniformly antagonistic

The response to Robert Manne's Quarterly Essay, 'Bad News', which I wrote about on this blog a few days ago, was predictable. The Australian summoned forth not one or two leading lights to rebut the thesis put forward by Manne - that The Australian is a campaigning newspaper that ruthlessly pursues a set of specific agendas - but eight of them and they all read from the same script: Manne is ideologically motivated and misleading in his claims. What better proof - if any further proof was needed - of the paper's editorial bias than this uniform response to a highly convincing essay by one of Australia's foremost intellectuals and polemicists.

To be frank I didn't read much of what was published today. There's simply no point. It's a predictable litany of offenses that shamelessly tries to underscore all the things Manne missed reporting that The Australian has written over the years. The evidence is often old - some sources date from the late 90s - but it is simply a cherry-picked assortment of get-out-of-jail-free cards that some prescient editor made sure were included at the time. Anyone who regularly reads The Australian knows that it is just the PR arm of the Liberal Party and that Manne actually has understated the case because he restricted himself - usefully, it turns out - to a small set of issues. If he had cast his net wider there would have been much more damning material for the paper to deny, now, as though Manne were somehow a unique and deluded maniac with an axe to grind.

He's not. There are thousands of intelligent people who read Manne's essay with a sense of peace because all it did was say - and back up with copious evidence - what they had been thinking for a long time but never had the time or energy to prove. Manne did Australia a great service by subjecting himself to such an onerous labour. Who else would put aside the months needed to scrutinise reams of tedious and one-sided material in order to prove a point? Mann alone. And what do we get in response? Eight quick throw-offs from a bunch of interested parties who represent a media owner who most definitely has an axe to grind and takes every opportunity to do so.

You wonder how these phone calls went. Just how did Chris Mitchell get all of his trusty warriors on side? What did he say to them in order to make sure that the response to Manne's essay was as complete and unanimous as concievably possible? No emails, for starters. Rrrrrrinnnnnnnnnnngg! "Hey, Joe, it's Chris here. Just wondering if you'd had time to read Robert Manne's essay. You did? Great. I'm sure you have a lot to say, Joe. I'll be using my past experience with Rob to attack him but you might want to look at genocide. You have? That's great. OK, mate, talk later." Click. Joe turns to his computer, rubs some almond oil into his palms, checks his Facebook one last time before beginning, then sets to: "Manne is just a stupid ass and nobody likes him, not even leftie intellectuals because his prose style is boring ..." Joe highlights and deletes his first attempt ruefully. No, something more is required, he thinks. The file is named 'Manne rebuttal first draft' and by the time Joe has completed his afternoon's work there are 2000 shining, sharp-edged words sitting on his hard drive. He leaves the office, goes to his pilates class, picks up some cheesecake from the patisserie on the corner, and when he reaches his kitchen he cracks open a cold one. He silently toasts his stubbie into the empty air, thinking, "This is for you, Chris."

Meanwhile, in a cafe in Newtown, two 25-year-old locals - one a legal clerk and the other a graphic designer - are talking about - what else? - Manne's devastating essay about The Australian. "They're going to be shitting themseslves in Surry Hills," says Graeme as he takes a spoonful of sticky-date pudding and pops it ironically into his mouth. "Yeah. Fuck that shit," says Imogen as she replaces her cup for emphasis on its saucer. "I'm sick of reading that crap. It just makes me want to vomit." "Mate, you should send a copy to Aaron in New York. He'd really dig that stuff. You know he got a piece published in the New Yorker?" "I heard," says Imogen. "He emailed me the link. Great job there." "Yeah," Graeme replies.

Imagine how these two young people will react when they see the eight responses piling up on the page The Australian dedicated to the essay.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng! "Hello?" "Mog, it's Graeme. Just calling to ask if you'd seen the Oz's reaction to Manne's essay on their website." "Yeah, sure," says Imogen. "I read a bit of the one by the guy who writes about Aborigines but I couldn't be bothered with that self-righteous crap." "No worries, Mogs. Hey, you right for Tuesday?" "The Fringe gig? Absolutely." "See ya." "See ya."

Back on King Street, Graeme exits the pie shop holding his breakfast in a plastic singlet bag. He navigates around the pair of police talking to the beggar in front of the IGA and enters the cavern that leads to the ticket counter of the Dendy. He picks up a few promotional leaflets, turns round, and walks home. It's not far to Alice Street but by the time he gets there, the pies are almost cold. Good thing he bought a microwave.

Top chefs issue future-facing manifesto

A group of chefs who jointly serve on the international board of the Basque Culinary Centre have adopted a vocal position with regards to the way they will carry out their profession in an 'Open letter to the chefs of tomorrow'. Meeting in Lima, Peru, the nine chefs issued the statement in the "hope that these reflections will serve as a reference and inspiration for the young people who will become tomorrow’s chefs". The Guardian reported on what it called the "starry-eyed manifesto" which it said was "a plan to save the planet, one dinner at a time". It's an attempt to lead from the front, and a welcome one at that. There could be plenty of followers, and not just those who call themselves chefs.

Cooking has never been so popular in the West. Lift-outs in magazaines and newspapers mix it in the public sphere with special cooking sections offering readers new recipes on a daily or weekly basis. High-end foodstuffs are more and more commonly found in even the most pedestrian supermarket as shoppers look for the ingredients they are told on TV and elsewhere are necessary to produce the dazzling and scrumptious concoctions they regularly behold. Stuff that is commonplace now in the fruit or cheese section was available only through specialty outlets only a few years ago. If we are what we eat, then we are to an increasing degree a sophisticated and discerning bunch. The Lima Declaration makes that sophistication a bit more understandable for everyone.

What could be more sophisticated than acknowledging "a responsibility to know and protect nature, to use our cooking and our voices as a tool for recovering heirloom and endangered varieties and species"? This type of language could help to further transform the way we think about where our food comes from. Ethical purchasing is a disputed area, with retailers and food producers gradually giving ground in the battles being fought over labelling and disclosure. If a group of top chefs manages to get the message out that buying only sustainable food is cool, then we can expect to see more and more transparency in labelling in future because shoppers will ask for it. This part of the 'Open letter' is just one of seven elements but it is also number one in the agenda and, as such, stands as a keystone of the chefs' statement. Ethical sourcing must be a factor in cooking and it will be part of a retailer's job, to an increasing degree, to ensure that shoppers are given the opportunity - through clear and unambiguous labelling - to make ethical choices when they go on their rounds in the store.

Watch for coverage of the Lima Declaration down the line, folks, and make sure that you always try to encourage biodiversity and sustainable production when you shop. Tomorrow's foodies will salute you. They are already high-signing the nine international chefs shown in the picture at the top of this post.

Murdoch's Oz flagship examined in Quarterly Essay

It's funny that Australian polemicist and academic Robert Manne decided to leave the board of The Monthly immediately prior to his Quarterly Essay, Bad News (issue 43, 2011), appearing in bookshops. Or not. I'm not suggesting that he anticipates a lawsuit from News Limited (the essay is a lengthy investigation of News Limited's flagship broadsheet, The Australian) and was asked to leave by the publisher, Melbourne property king Morry Schwartz. It probably doesn't mean anything at all, but the fact that it is of interest makes you realise that The Australian has a signal relationship with controversy. They certainly have a signal relationship with a broad cross section of the public.

It's as though Rupert Murdoch and his editors globally have decided that, these days, the fiction of impartiality that newspapers give lip service to, is no longer necessary. You don't have to worry about consequences because governments everywhere in the West are so weak as a result of two generations of peace that people can be relied upon to ignore expressions of outrage from politicians. Capital rules, buddy. Newspapers like The Australian have deep pockets and, as Manne points out repeatedly in his essay, millions of words at their disposal.

If impartiality is no longer a requirement for the media and you are a conservative gentleman like Rupert Murdoch then what will happen is that your broadsheet will become progressively tabloidised. The Australian is now the broadsheet that anybody can read. Conservatives rely on the population's baser instincts in order to maintain their privileges, so if you're a conservative media guy you slap on your granddad's old helmet, gird your loins and drum up outrage among the plebs during the day. Then at night you retire to your penthouse and open a bottle of $100-a-bottle chardonnay such as any self-respecting Left-wing liberal bureaucrat or academic only dreams about imbibing. Robert Manne doesn't say as much in his essay, but he does say that The Australian has broken ground in a number of ways:

It is an unusually ideological paper, committed to advancing the causes of neoliberalism in economics and neoconservatism in the sphere of foreign policy. Its style and tone are unlike that of any other newspaper in the nation's history. The Australian is ruthless in pursuit of those who oppose its worldview - market fundamentalism, minimal action on climate change, the federal Intervention in indigenous affairs, uncritical support for the American alliance and for Israel, opposition to what it calls political correctness and moral relativism.

Manne then goes on the explain what he means by making such claims, in an essay that began a year ago this month and that has clearly occupied a lot of his time and energy. It is devastatingly well-researched and its conclusions are equally devastating. If you are interested in the spread of influence from the extreme Right (yes, it is more pronounced in the US but it's still visible here, for example in the way the Liberal Party has changed since November 2009 when Tony Abbott took over the party's leadership), or if you are interested in the media in Australia, then you should read this essay. There is no evidence that anyone at The Australian has read it - a search on their website delivers no related links - but it is bound to cause numerous sets of teeth to grind there. Hence my idea that Manne had been asked to leave The Monthly's board to limit any resulting damage if a lawsuit were to result from the publication of his essay.

The Australian's editor, Chris Mitchell, comes out of the wash looking a bit dishevelled. More precisely, he looks a lot like a tanty-throwing rugrat wearing a Hogan's-Heroes helmet. At any sign of resistance to his will the knives come out, it seems, and his myrmidons are unleashed on some unsuspecting public figure. Manne backs up the serious claim encapsulated in the extract I included above and thus links Murdoch's Australian operation to the ones he owns in the UK via the problematic relationship that seems to exist between his media vehicles and politicians in countries he operates in. In the UK there was a feeling of relief from both major parties when Murdoch began to buckle under the pressure of the Hackgate scandal. In Australia the feeling is equally heartfelt.

In short, says Manne, The Australian makes no bones at all about being impartial. It's not. It is a campaigning outfit with multiple axes to grind and it goes about its business with zest. No wonder the pollies of the Left are sharpening their own knives.

For journalists at the newspaper there might be moments of conflict. From my own experience this seems to be true. I was at a book launch at the University of Sydney in October 2007 where the topic was the media and I remember making a comment to the gathering about the lack of press freedom in Japan, where I have lived. Another person in the room said that, at News Limited newspapers, there was also no freedom and that journalists were routinely told what to write. It didn't strike me at the time because back then I was not reading the news many times a day as I have done since becoming a freelance journo two years ago. Now, however, those comments strike me as revealing.

It goes without saying that I will be monitoring the media for appearances of references to Manne's essay. If the essay gives any of the beleaguered pollies on the Left some courage, then it will have done its job. If it takes the heat off Julie Posetti, the Canberra academic Chris Mitchell threatened to sue for accurately relaying what a person said during a public meeting in Sydney earlier this year, then it will have served a purpose. If it encourages the newspaper it was written to understand to behave with more balance and adopt more ethical behaviours, the essay will have done all thinking Australians a service. For unthinking Australians, don't worry: there are scads of stories being produced by Murdoch tabloids every day. You don't have to blow a fuse, Robert Manne is doing all the hard work for you.

Twin Towers a blip on global radar amid economic shift

Over the coming week we're going to see a lot of images like this. It's sort of comforting in a perverse way. It's comforting because not only are such images now plain fare for media consumers, but because they recall a moment of common purpose. Nine-eleven is a historical moment most of us can share. Those excluded - the very young - can refer to their parents' or relatives' memories and the emotions that are connected to them. The memories attached to such images must take into account a striking reality - office workers falling from a high-rise building, passenger planes colliding with buildings, a pall of grey smoke running away across the sharp New York skyline - and also the underlying reality embodied in the hatred that unleashed this quantity of violence against a symbol - for most in the West - not of oppression but of progress and prosperity.

Since nine-eleven al Qaeda has changed although its ultimate goals may not have. The overthrow of America and the establishment of a pan-national Islamic state were concepts hard enough to accept in 2001 for most Westerners, but we learned. The movement tried a few more things but since 2005 there have been few serious incidents. The official response led to a number of new laws and new protocols at airport security points, but these changes are no longer overly irksome for most people. A number of al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated, anti-terror authorities have thwarted a number of new attacks before they could be carried out, and we are left to contemplate those memorable images in relative peace.

The sleeping giant in the new post-nine-eleven world is, of course, China. The bulk of economic growth, says Angus Taylor, an economist with Port Jackson Partners, a Sydney consulting firm, has been since 2003 outside the developed world. The video is on today's The Australian website.

What we've seen in the global economy in the last 10 years has been an extraordinary flip, where if you looked prior to 2003 or so, about two-thirds of economic growth was coming from the developed world and one-third from the developing world. What happened from about 2003 is that turned on its head, so that you're seeing now about two-thirds of economic growth coming from the developing world and one-third from the developed world.

The reason that matters so much for us is that those people in the developing world are poorer and what they want as their economies grow is not so much plasma TVs or cars, but the basic infrastructure and food, fibre. [It's a] transition into the middle class.

The price of food has been named as one of the reasons for social unrest this year in the Middle East that has led to the overthrow of three governments - in Tunisia, Egypt and Lybia - rather than an al Quaeda-led shift away from the notion of the sovereign state to a multinational Islamic regime. Corruption and wealth disparities are matters of as much concern to average residents of such countries as the issue of Israel and the struggles of the Palestinians. The grievances of an organised militant operation are of less moment than the aspirations of a nominal mass of people who want the same things that Westerners have taken for granted for at least two generations.

Chinese people also want these things but the difference here is that China also stands as a destabilising influence on a global scale in a way that no country has done since the Soviet Union collapsed, starting in 1989. Nine-eleven was a blip on the radar within a 14-year hiatus during which China reconfigured itself to emerge as a major player on the global political stage. The rise of the developing world is a fact of far greater import to the West than al Qaeda's theatrical coup amid the high-priced real estate of downtown New York City.

What al Qaeda represents in a wider frame of reference, however, is a matter of identity, of status. The attacks on the Twin Towers were a visible statement that said, 'We're as good as you. Don't underestimate us.' It also pointed to the use of religion in Islamic countries as a means of stabilising personal and community identity within an environment of shifting priorities and values. As these countries have grown economically and, in many ways, begun to emulate the West, something other was needed - on both a personal and a community level - to offset the stresses of change. New commodities, new priorities, new ways of looking at the future - possibly even the idea of "the future" itself - have led to a new way of framing the world. The most obvious tool for use in this quest was, of course, religion.

'We are as good as you. In fact, we're better than you,' has been the tone of this historical moment. More wealth and persistent corruption have meant that people are looking for a way to compete on the global stage with those they are coming to rival. But in Indonesia and China the way people are working out these problems, unlike in Tunisia and Egypt, is not through regime change. There are opportunities here for Westerners to capitalise on these changes. Instead of looking at images of planes flying into buildings, we should be looking at how these countries are expressing their aspirations, and not just reporting the stories that demonstrate that we are, still, in some way better than them.

The Greens take the high road by walking the walk

It's an unmitigated disaster for Labor and a PR coup for the Coalition. The High Court's ruling in favour of refugees who want to be processed for asylum in Australia is quite clear: Malaysia cannot offer adequate protection for asylum seekers sent there, and it does not have adequate provision for access to effective procedures for gauging asylum claims. Australia's international obligations have trumped political expedience and Immigration Minister Bowen is left holding the can. He must be very unhappy right at this point in time, despite assertions that he is seeking legal advice.

Pleasing sectors of the electorate who harbour their racism behind objections to those who make a business out of trafficking people from overseas to Australia via points in Southeast Asia is something the Coalition are very good at. Conservatism almost demands that you take a xenophobic view of the world, and is more closely aligned in its values with the lower strata of society. Progressives aspire to improve the world, conservatives merely claim validity for the status quo on the grounds that it's better for business. It costs less to do things if you are stingy both emotionally and financially. Don't give 'em a farthing, is the mantra from the Right. But for Labor to align its immigration policy so closely with that of the Coalition is a behaviour that should not surprise us. Since the 1980s, Labor has been drifting Rightwards with alarming consistency. Hence the rise of the Greens.

The High Court's decision will be seen as a vindication by those who vote on their side of politics. It's a reminder that there are higher goals to which Australia should aspire, having taken on the responsibility - as well as the cachet - of progressive decisions designed to protect the weakest and most vulnerable, wherever they reside. The Greens have been saying for a long time that Malaysia is not a "fit and proper" country under the terms of our obligations, just as they aim to prove through an enquiry into the media that News Limited is not a "fit and proper" guardian of our democratic interests in the form of control of a substantial segment of Australia's media. There are real principles involved here, not just economic reasons for doing this or that. The Greens prove, again, that they are the real guardians of Australia's collective conscience, not either of the two major parties.

Michele Bachmann channels angels, and wants to be Prez

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, 'CAN I HEAR THE LORD?' OF COURSE I CAN, WITH THIS SPECIAL ETHERIAL MESSAGE TRANSPONDER ATTACHED TO MY SKULL! ARE YOU BLIND?

Well, at least that's the picture I get from where I live Down Under after reading Ryan Lizza's well-researched piece in a recent issue of The New Yorker (admittedly a pretty liberal Big City, blue state magazine) about Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. Such notions would probably be denied by Bachmann and her coterie because of worries about alienating Middle America (at least those parts of it which are likely to vote on the Right next year) but it's pretty clear that this born-again Christian does, indeed, believe that the Scriptures ought to be implemented in a literal sense within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. As Lizza points out, a lot of the literature that Bachmann has, at one point in time or another, endorsed lies well outside the bounds of sanity. A Christian Caliphate? You bet.

And we thought that Tony Abbott was a worry here, in Australia. The Opposition Leader is of course a Catholic and has supported policies that work against abortion, in the past, but he's at least not someone who believes that he has a secure phone line to the Almighty.

The Tea Party voters that Bachmann is trying to win over are sympathetic to such rhetoric, of course, but by using such terms as "liberty" Bachmann is trying to win over other parts of the Right in US society.

[T]he Pew Research Center, in its recent quadrennial study of the American electorate, noted that “the most visible shift in the political landscape” since 2005 “is the emergence of a single bloc of across-the-board conservatives. The long-standing divide between economic, pro-business conservatives and social conservatives has blurred.”

Ouch. Bachmann is not the only option, certainly, but on the other side of the ring stands Mitt Romney, a Massachussetts Mormon (if that can be given any sort of credence). So it looks as though the US is set for an entertaining year of pollie-schtick as the Republican Party moves toward actually making Barack Obama a "one term president" (the cry is Bachmann's signature, popping up at almost every public appearance). Lizza suspects that the electorate will cotton onto Bachmann's true wierdness before the election, however. We can only hope.

Hand-wringing over Qantas expansion will be forgotten

Here are two images showing air transport in action. At the top is a Qantas aeroplane, the kangaroo emblem on its tail significative of a solid, safe Australia. As Matt O'Sullivan describes it in his story today in Fairfax papers, Qantas is "linked to the national identity" in a way that many other companies are not. While Qantas no doubt enjoys some market advantage as a result, the link also brings with it the distinct disadvantage that changes to the way Qantas operates are always greeted with a chorus of jeers, as has happened in the past week or so since the airline announced that it would establish a premium carrier in Asia and extend Jetstar's reach in Japan. How will it pull off the move? What about jobs lost in Australia? Asia is already catered to. Will the brand become diluted? Is the sky falling in? Sacrilege!

Unfortunately for those in the public sphere who lambast the current Qantas plan, the second image shows the reality in air travel. It's a crowded marketplace and companies who want to compete and survive must adapt to changing circumstances. Asia's middle class is growing year-on-year. Australia is fortunately situated next door to Asia. So why is the Qantas expansion of its brand to the region seen as a threat to national pride, or something even less appetising - as a threat to a national emblem that represents something essential about Australia? Alan Joyce, the airline CEO, frames the argument in dire terms when he compares the weakening situation now faced by Qantas with other airlines. Ansett went broke, he says, and we don't want to go down that route. While naysayers conjure up a range of emotionally-charged reasons why Qantas should stay "truly Australian", men and women like Joyce will be mindful of the weakened condition of such a premium carrier as Japan Airlines, which has not been able to expand its operational base in a way they now propose and which is in deep trouble.

In Southeast Asia, Qantas' competitors must be wringing their hands in anxious expectation that their prestigious Australian competitor will take customers away. Everybody knows that Qantas has a gold-plated safety record, and the airline's managers will be packaging their marketing messages to profit from that fact. Exporting Qantas operational systems to Asia could be a way of improving airline safety in the region generally, and the challenge for the company's management will be to ensure that nothing gets in the way of the brand's zero-fatality record enduring for another 90 years.

Ultimately, the argy-bargy we're being exsposed to will fade from memory as long as that safety record is unblemished. Australians will be even prouder of the flying kangaroo if they can see it taking customers away from major competitors like Singapore Airways and Cathay Pacific in the markets where these companies now dominate. We anticipate seeing aerial photographs of Qantas planes skimming over the towers of modern Shanghai when, one day, Qantas finally cracks the big one: China's massive market.

Australian farmers face poor returns from gas extraction

Coal seam gas (CSG) has helped produce a mass of words in Australia, as well as handsome profits for well developers. Since these companies started to target agricultural land the debate has become progressively more heated, reaching - it's fair to say - epic proportions in social media, let alone the traditional media. Farmers are outraged, and rightly so. In Australia they hardly benefit from hosting wells on their properties. In the United States it's quite a different proposition, as we can learn from reading the New Yorker's (itself epic) feature story, 'Kuwait on the Prairie'. There, it's oil they're extracting. But the technologies used to get the stuff out of the rock formation in which it sleeps are similar in nature to those used in Australia to extract gas.

The big difference between the situation that has developed in the two countries is that, in North Dakota, farmers are getting seriously rich. One woman interviewed for the story said that leasing development rights to her land netted her "several hundred thousand dollars a year". Another woman said that it was "free money" for farmers. And farmers and speculators in North Dakota are turning their exploration rights into new houses, new cars, and new farm equipment. The returns available for farmers in Australia do not match these.

Why is it that Australian farmers are made to get by on a return of a couple of hundred dollars per well per year? It must be to do with land laws. In Australia, it seems, the farmer owns the surface of the land but not what lies beneath it. In the US, the freehold goes all the way down. That's a sobering reality, and it's almost certain that a lot of the arguments about food security and sovereign risk that are being put forward in the public sphere by farmers' groups would disappear if the financial returns available from leasing access rights to wealthy gas companies were higher.

London riots represent triumph of the market over politics

Within four days rioting had spread from London to Leeds, Liverpool, Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester. The spark was police shooting a young black man in Tottenham, where the disturbance started. But it's not about that death any more. "They just want to be heard," said a young black woman quoted in a Guardian story that assigned blame to society at large. "This is the only way some people have to communicate." Another story, by Laurie Penny and published in the Sydney Morning Herald, repeated the message, saying that people don't know why the riots happen "because they were not watching these communities".

In one NBC report, a young man in Tottenham was asked if rioting really achieved anything.

''Yes,'' said the young man. ''You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you? Two months ago we marched to Scotland Yard, more than 2000 of us, all blacks, and it was peaceful and calm and you know what? Not a word in the press. Last night a bit of rioting and looting and look around you.''

But what are they communicating? The story by Laurie Penny appeared with an image of something burning in the street, but soon afterward the image changed to a shot showing youths in hoodies carrying boxes of electronic goods through the streets. There are few voices of these youths recorded by the media. There are no political slogans, no overt references to the death of Mark Duggan, which was the spark that lit the conflagration. But on one occasion youths breaking into an O2 mobile phone shop were heard shouting "O2, O2, O2". The kids carry no signs, but they're organised. They do not ask for better access to education, they take goods that have value to them. Their voices are rarely heard, but they communicate constantly on handheld devices.

If they do not respect either their parents or the police it is because that's what they've learned. If they zoom in on respected brand names in their looting it is because that's where their attention is normally focused. As Laurie Penny's story notes, "the politics are there" but these are the politics of the market, not of the public sphere as it is normally recognised by the media, politicians, trade unionists, and other institutional players in society. And it's no wonder that in the society of these youths the market has triumphed over politics, because the market has triumphed over politics everywhere globalisation touches. Which means everywhere on earth.

Loretta Napoleoni in her book Rogue Economics: Capitalism's new reality (2008) talks about the shift in power that has taken place since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989:

During major transitions, illegal businesses, which have at their disposal large service networks, can supplant national economies, while the policies of powerful governments can serve to empower organised crime. Against this scenario, we cannot avoid posing the question: has politics died?

In Britain today the disparity of wealth that exists between unemployed youth and the richest citizens is greater than it has ever been. And the way these riches have been earned has depended on the globalised market, which erodes the power of domestic politics because it operates outside local jurisdictions. You can shift money around, place it in convenient locales, and buy a house in Chelsea with the proceeds. You can make a fortune in Russia and buy a British football team. You can do anything that you want and still enjoy living in a peaceful place like central London. And people do. When he was expelled from politics in Thailand Thaksin Shinawatra retreated to his London house, where he could enjoy the proceeds of his questionable business practices in relative peace. There are hundreds of similar stories that never make it into the newspapers in Australia. But the kids on the streets in Tottenham know about these men and women because they see them every time they take the Tube into the city.

They read about them in the newspapers. But now they're reading about themselves. It's their time in the public gaze, the time of the children who are the product of decades of neo-liberal reform: privatisation, cuts to social welfare, the rise of a super-rich class of citizen. Under Labour and Conservative governments alike the result has been the same. The market has triumphed at the expense of all other institutions. That is what these kids are telling us: "This is what you told us to do. See? We are as good as you."

China's rebukes to US hide the historical truth

China's second rebuke to the US in almost as many days provides a stinging challenge to America's national pride and it won't be forgotten. What has been forgotten by politicians in the US capitol and in Beijing is that it was a Democrat president, Bill Clinton, who serially favoured granting Most Favored Nation status to China. That took place back in 2000, which led to China's acceptance in the WTO a year later. Access to foreign markets then led to a shift in global trading patterns. At the time Clinton was pushing for China's acceptance by the world it was said jobs would be created in the US. What happened instead was the hollowing-out of the US industrial heartland. Both jobs and manufacturing capacity migrated to China. The resulting surge in employment in China has led to its massive current-account surplus. Clinton's decision to engage more fully with China - putting off improvements in human rights in the Middle Kingdom - gave China the strength to buy US treasury bonds. This, in turn, has led to China's rebukes.

But China has always used history liberally. Historical truth is not important, says Loretta Napoleoni in Rogue Economics: Capitalism's New Reality (2008), for Chinese leaders are mainly intent on restoring the greatness of historical China, not forming a consistent image for the use of a politically-aware contemporary electorate.

By undermining regionalism and recycling history, the Cultural Revolution ensured the uniform development of society across all of the nation's spaces. But to do this, individualism could not impinge on the collective and homogenized Chinese identity that focused, above all, on the common cause. Maoism became the common ground of the new society.

...

History has become nothing more than a cultural resource, shaped according to the needs of a particular group, and is the social glue of a postmodern tribalism that is defined by the territory of the tribe.

...

In the context of China's controversial love affair with globalization, tribalism keeps the influence of foreign cultures at bay.

Napoleoni calls China a "market-state" where "politics is nothing more than an accessory to business and economic opportunism". So China's rebukes to the US must be seen in this rather sinister light. But the audience is not only an external one. The rebukes also constitute a form of internal PR, designed to diminish the stature of the US in the eyes of China's youth, who are becoming increasingly Westernised.

In reality, Clinton did the Chinese leadership a massive favour by granting businesses from the mainland access to global markets. But things have changed and it's inconvenient to acknowledge this truth. Instead, China's leadership just rewrites the record and posits as an autonomous economic virtue the prosperity China's people have been allowed to access by the US leadership pre-2001. China's leadership wants nothing more than to acquire additional power in both an economic and moral sense. In order to do that, truth must be sacrificed to the greater common good. No only truth, but rightful gratitude as well.

Last time I was down in Sydney I dropped by Gleebooks for a recreative fossick and asked the guy behind the back-store counter for a book about the Tea Party movement which has taken the US by storm over the past two years. A book, Boiling Mad: Inside Tea Party America by New York Times journalist Kate Zernike, was chosen in preference to one by an actual Tea Partier since I wanted something non-partisan and well-informed. I got it. Australian public-sphere watchers may think they know about the Tea Party but historical divergences mean that you really need a primer like Zelnike's book to glom onto the way the Tea Party emerged, and how it has developed as a grassroots activism project in the US.

The Tea Party stems from post-GFC disgust with bail-outs. George W Bush was the first president to start coughing up cash to prevent financial institutions from falling over, and his lead has been followed by Barack Obama since. Tea Partiers resent their money being used in this way. Initially it was the undeserving poor - who had borrowed money from rapacious financial institutions at initially-low rates to buy houses they could otherwise not afford - that attracted the ire of those parts of middle America that would probably not have been caught in default when the 2-year interest-free periods on such "toxic" loans ended. These parts of middle America resemble those parts of Australian society who backed Pauline Hanson. Mixed up in the Tea Party mindset is anxiety about indigent citizens and a deep distrust of elites - those parts of society that hold higher degrees in, say, business management and who fill key positions in government.

The Tea Party really took off once they got help, in this case from FreedomWorks, a conservative non-profit think tank that is backed by the wealthy Koch brothers. FreedomWorks showed Tea Partiers how to launch campaigns, build support bases, and get involved in the public sphere. They were aided in their rabble-rousing (if you like) by Fox News. The Tea Party is mainly white, middle class, male and religious. But its ability to latch onto existing narratives within the American story meant that it took off where other aggrieved sections of society had failed. There were things in the American story just waiting to be actualised, and to motivate people sufficiently that they have been able to challenge the status quo and change the direction of the country.

In Australia we don't have the same referents available for similar purposes but I propose launching a movement to counter the deadening effects of certain parts of this country's leadership. I call for the establishment of a Manifesto of the Elites and I have chosen as an emblem one of William Blake's illustrations for Mitlon's Paradise Lost: Satan rousing the rebellious angels.

After reading Kernike's book for a few hours last night I got on Twitter and started to look around, tweet, and attempt to engage with the Tea Party grassroots. I had no luck. The #TCOT tweetstream is filled with Tea Party chat but the people there were impervious to my appeals for reason. I understand how they want agency, community and companionship, and I tried to show my awareness, but it was impossible even to raise a peep from these committed tweeps. So I went to Facebook and posted a draft manifesto. It reads:

Power to the Blooming Wattle! The elites and progressives of Australia demand recognition. We celebrate ambiguity and foster education as a means of channelling it to good purposes. We shun mere material wealth and anticipate a brighter future for all humankind. We know ourselves and are happy with our possibilities. We seek out new options, undertake difficult challenges, and encourage entrepreneurship in a material and in an intellectual sense. #PWRTBW

I chose the hashtag #PWRTBW because it means "progressives who refuse to be wedged" and it represents a wish that progressives could mobilise in the same way the Tea Party has mobilised, and change the direction the country is taking. There were no comments on my post, or even 'likes'. There was only silence. And perhaps this says something about progressives: they are as hard to mobilise on an acknowledged platform as cats are to herd. My movement remains stillborn. It is possibly doomed to oblivion. Like Satan in Milton's extraordinary epic poem. Like Blake for most of his life. But perhaps there's a lesson to learn in the way Blake was eventually picked up by the youth of the emerging Victorian era: young, religious and earnest, they idolised the old man in his dotage.

If I'm right there will be more written about the case of Mazoltuv Borukhova, the woman sentenced in 2009 for paying for the murder of Daniel Malakov, her husband. If only because of the "disquiet" The Guardian's Rachel Cooke estimates as one of the rewards available to the careful reader of Janet Malcolm's latest essay Iphigenia in Forest Hills. Like Malcolm's other books - or at least the two others I've read - the book has an evanescent quality like a watercolour painting. But the heavy message contained in her famous The Journalist and the Murderer is absent here. Partly, it's due to the stark fact that the author had no access to any of the principal players. Malcolm observes in the courtroom, chats with the lawyers, approaches members of the family (and eventually gains access to the homes of members of the dead father's family), and fraternises with the other reporters in the courtroom. But she only ever passes by Michelle, the daughter who could likely be deprived forever of the care and company of her incarcerated mother - and whose father had already been buried.

This lack of access is not unusual in books of the genre. Australia's own Helen Garner has written books comprised entirely of renditions of interactions with secondary players when the principals were accused of crimes and had to face court - journalists are generally relegated to a low place on the chain when it comes to giving access to suspects. 

And in Malcolm's case, too, the author enters the drama as an actor. This is entirely suitable where personal, subjective assessments are critical to an appreciation of the hidden reality behind the words spoken by prosecution, judge and defence. Cooke says that Borukhova hired Mikhail Mallayev to shoot Daniel like it's a fact but Malcolm's detailed and dense recount of the facts of the case dare us to claim that we are certain of the truth of the matter. Dense. It's a book with the specific gravity of the heaviest elements on the literary periodic table, replete with names, events, legal facts, claims and counterclaims. It's a tangled skein of flowing aspersions that get thicker and more unpalatable as the book draws to a close and we find ourselves in the homes of people on Daniel's side of the family.

Michelle, as Cooke says, is Iphigenia; a character out of one of the oldest books available to us, Iphigenia was murdered and then her death was avenged by the mother on the father who killed her. In Malcolm's book the taint of child abuse hovers sickeningly over the spaces inhabited by the narrative like some ghoul in a film about sorcerors and magic wands, always prompt to fly away whenever someone is asked an unpleasant question. The hatred shared by Daniel's relatives is dismally abhorrent and gives the reader no comfort when it is laid in the balance with Michelle's true best interests: it's clear the girl still loves her mother. Whether Daniel molested her is one of those facts that is liable to reemerege in the appeals court and run shrieking around the courtroom laying curses on all the houses the guilty inhabit.

I read this book in a little over one sitting and reckon that it does an incredibly efficient job in a very small space. But then all Malcolm's books are diminutive, unlike her talent.

Everyone of my generation knows the TV character Kojak played by Telly Savalas in a police drama that screened regularly during the 70s but they may not know where the character originated and why. This book will help to understand where Kojak came from. For people growing up in sleepy Australia throughout their teens during the era of civil rights protests T.J. English's The Savage City (2011) provides the backstory to Kojak and other things besides. So, OK, you've seen Quentin Tarantino's Jackie Brown, you used to love James Brown, and you know that New York socialites like Norman Mailer once had a thing about Black Panthers. But you never really understood about Malcolm X or the Nation of Islam and why these people did what they did. In fact you probably don't even know what they did. This book is the answer. It will help you to understand much about the civil rights era and the cultural spinoffs that you grew up with and could immediately relate to though you never read the news stories in the papers that reflected the events that spawned them.

The book focuses on the lives of three individuals whose lives represent something essential about the era of US civil rights protest. There's George Whitmore, a young black man from New Jersey who is charged with three crimes that he didn't commit, including the murder of two young, well-off New York women. This was a crime that was dubbed the "Career Girls Murders" and is the case that led to the emergence of Kojak from Hollywood after a screenwriter adapted the book on the subject by a journalist into a screenplay. Abby Mann's The Marcus-Nelson Murders included a character named Kojack who was a good cop and was a "composite character, based on a number of detectives, lawyers, and reporters who were involved in the Wylie-Hoffert murder case", according to Wikipedia. In fact there was no "good cop" in Whitmore's case and for almost a decade he fought against conviction for this murder and for two other crimes. Whitmore's struggles were part of the reason that the Black Panther Party began (although it started in San Francisco, not New York, where Whitmore's travails played out), in a reaction against corrupt police practices. It was also during this period that the well-known Miranda warning emerged in the US. The common practice of police to set up individuals for crimes by manipulating their testimony resulted in an official response: individuals must be informed about their constitutional rights before they are interrogated. It also resulted in the formation of the Black Panthers and a virtual war between black man and white police on the streets of US cities for half a decade.

Dhoruba Bin Wahad is the second person whose life is chronicled in the book. A member of the Black Panthers, Dhoruba was born Richard Moore but became a key lieutenant in the BPP. The third person who features in the book is Bill Phillips, a currupt cop who was turned and used by the Knapp Commission set up to investigate corrupt practices in the New York Police Department. All three of these men are alive in the US. All three of them served time in jail. One was completely innocent of the crimes originally laid upon him. One was deeply corrupt but representative of the entire police force. The third, Dhoruba, was a product of a society still struggling to deal with the legacy of slavery. English, the journalist who wrote the book, has undertaken a massive exercise in witnessing, for the modern generation, the forces that shaped the lives of these individuals. It's an pretty extraordinary book and a great find for those, like me, who value good non-fiction. For this reason the book comes highly recommended from me.

Apparently we should be worried. Odd things are happening, like the Australian dollar jumping in value to over US$1.10 - the highest it has been since the currency float of 1983 - and the Australian stock market's S&P/ASX 200 index falling almost 40 percent in a single day to its lowest level since the depth of the global economic crisis in 2009. While we're told Australians are saving more than ever - retailers are grumbling loudly - the fact is that this latter movement probably has to do with our indebtedness to foreign lenders. Both movements are due to uncertainty deriving from the US debt limit drama that's being played out in Washington, DC.

From here it's a little obscure in its details but the amount of press the House of Representatives debate on lifting the debt cap is receiving gives you some indication of how some elements in the US are taking the crisis. If the debt limit ($14.2 trillion, currently - a truly staggering sum of money) is not lifted as a result of legislative fiat by Tuesday the US government will have to start stopping payments to some creditors, or stop paying public servants or welfare recipients. Or stop paying soldiers. Or cut back on its morning coffee. Or raid the piggy bank. Or something. It's causing major ructions Stateside. The country is fighting costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to be beset by economic headaches resulting from the GFC. Both of these things are attributable Republican Party policies implemented to this point but it's the Republicans - with a majority in the House of Representatives and a minority in the Senate - who are now causing global markets to see-saw as investors seek safe havens for their cash. Gold has increased in value to well over $1600 an ounce. The Australian dollar is rising in value as investors buy Australian government bonds as a secure place to park their money.

Compounding the US-led uncertainty is the debt problem in some European countries, notably Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland. In Greece there have been, in the last month, street riots resulting from legislative moves to cut government spending. European bankers are wary about bailing out the Greeks and have set conditions on future funding. Whether governments there can keep the vessel balanced and afloat remains a question.

More engaging because it's available in English to global audiences in the Anglosphere is the US House crisis. Republican House speaker John Boehner needs to secure the support of some newly-elected Tea partiers in order to pass his bill but they're "holding the line" - a novel catchphrase heard in street rallies among Tea Party diehards. They're refusing to accede to the bill's conditions and are asking for further austerity measures in order to put pressure on the Democrat president, Barack Obama. Needless to say we anticipate a lot more fevered press coverage of this legislature impasse as the next few days drag on for politicians and reporters on the Washington political beat. Who will say "Uncle" first - the Republican House or the president? It's up in the air like a balloon shaped like a cosmic tarantula. Be afraid.

UPDATE 8.35am: Boehner's bill just passes vote in the House but the Senate majority leader says it's "dead on arrival" in the Senate.

UPDATE 4.35pm: Democrat Senate refuses to pass House bill and it is defeated solidly almost immediately in the Senate.

Fallout from the Norway killings less than a week ago is somewhat confusing with some politicians excusing Anders Breivik's rampage - notably Mario Borghezio, a member of the European Parliament from Italy with the anti-immigrant Northern League, Erik Hellsborn, a local politician for the nationalist Sweden Democrats in the southern Swedish town of Varberg, and Jacques Coutela, a member of the National Front in France - and others running as fast as possible in the opposite direction - notably the British far-right EDL:

After reports that Mr. Breivik was in touch with Britain’s far-right English Defense League, the group issued a statement this week saying that it could “categorically state that there has never been any official contact between him and the EDL.”

We rely on the New York Times for this information. And that's another problem with events that have a pan-European play: there will be lots of information but it will be in foreign languages (Swedish, anyone?) and it will be posted on lots of different websites. Much easier to look for help closer to home. In Australia we have the thoughts of such people as The Australian's Greg Sheridan who rejects suggestions that Breivik can be likened to an Islamic terrorist, and says that he's just a lone looney. An animal of an entirely different stripe.

It's not a case of "monkey see monkey do" because there is no ideological infrastructure supporting Breivik.

No serious Christian cleric ever gives such violence succour, no Christian-influenced state ever supports it. The terrorists concerned in custody do not read the Gospels, but always some other conspiracy literature concerning their own hang-ups.

Left unexamined is the obvious matter of agency. "Islam" means "submission" and so Islamic terrorists will naturally seek guidance from outside when putting into play the grievances that they harbour inside themsleves. In the West the notion of individual agency means that individuals prefer a different relationship between ideas in the public sphere and the actions they pursue in order to realise their desires through them. Breivik's long-term industry and efficient application must be seen in this light. A Western terrorist is unlikely to respond to concerted calls for violent action. Jihad can thus take on something like its original meaning in the mind of a man like Breivik: a "duty" or "struggle" against external realities that offend the sensibility. In this vein, no serious Western terrorist seeks specific guidance in their struggle but rather improvises within a nexus of commonly-held ideas. For this reason, Europe must certainly take responsibility for Breivik's actions. Not political parties alone but, indeed, all Europeans.

To pass Breivik off as some sort of insane monster is disingenuous. Unhappily for the majority of law-abiding citizens in the West the upshot of Breivik's attack will likely be enhanced surveillance and enforcement. This is already happening in Europe and it is likely to feature in memos written by security functionaries in other countries too. The failure of Norway's security apparatus to identify Breivik as a threat and the consequent failure to short circuit his actions will rest as a salutory lesson for law enforcement bodies globally. Is 1984 therefore approaching ever closer to our fragile democracies?

As news of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norway terrorist, continues to emerge we have read criticism from the liberal commentariat aimed at early media coverage claiming that the bombing and subsequent shooting were the work of Islamic extremists. The assumption in much of the West was that a person imitating al-Quaeda had perpetrated the attacks and, for people living in Britain or the USA, such assumptions would have appeared unarguably reasonable. For a Swede like dead crime fiction author Stieg Larsson, however, the real fact of the matter would have been just as credible as this biography by journalist Jan-Erik Pettersson tells us.

Larsson is now famous for writing the highly-popular Millennium Trilogy but that performance occupied only a short period of the journalist's life. What mostly preoccupied him - and what this biography talks about in great detail - is the battle in Sweden since the early 1980s for a contested space. The combatants have been fascist-inspired anti-immigration groups and left-wing social elements including activists like popular fiction writer Larsson. It's an interesting read for anyone interested in this Nordic brand of racism and of course for anyone interested in the man who created such memorable fictional characters as the embattled hacker Lisbeth Salander and that paragon of ethics, journalist Michael Blomkvist. My interest in the trilogy began when my attention was captured by its popularity but my real fascination with it lies in the fact that it engages in debate around the role of the media in society. I love seeing representations of journalists in popular culture because they say something about what we expect to receive from this special class of (more or less) professional people. For Larsson, journalism was a calling, something to occupy all aspects of the individual. For him it was definitely not a 9-to-5 job.

This is why Larsson branched out into activist journalism. Employed at an early age by media companies, initially to produce graphical illustrations to accompany pieces written by others, Larsson moved eventually to a writing role with Sweden's wire service, TT. While gainfully employed by TT he also began to work on stories for a fringe magazine set up to combat racism. His knowledge of the far-Right and its organisational structures, operating methods, and principal actors was much sought after even though the magazine that took his stories - named Expo - folded after a few years due to lack of funding.

That's as far as I've gotten in the biography, which I purchased at the airport while on my way to Sydney to meet up with friends. Reading it, I thought how timely its appearance was considering the developing drama of the Norway attacks. In fact it was uncanny for me that it has hit Australian bookshops just at this time. It's a reminder that no matter how bad our radio shock jocks are there are places with far worse brands of racism that include assault, assassination, physical intimidation, street protests, and hate-filled popular culture. I'm sure there are adherents of this kind of dark ideology in Australia but to this point they have been well hidden within the outwardly peaceful suburbs that nurture our desires.

Twitter user @danielrhamilton says, "I was at U w/ guy who attacked #Murdoch. It's Jonathan May-Bowles. (@JonnieMarbles)" And who are we to argue? The cheeky comedian's last tweet before his attack on Rupert Murdoch at the Commons culture, media and sport select committee meeting, where Rupert and his son James appeared today, was: "It is a far better thing that I do now than I have ever done before #splat." Further, the gentleman whose face appears with this post closely resembles that of the attacker of Rupert Murdoch, as seen on British TV live from the parliamentary committee room. As far as I can ascertain from having viewed the feed, anyway. The feed shifted rapidly from inside the committee room to outside, where two police officers had taken custody of a man in a checked shirt with a white substance on his face. The full details of the event will undoubtedly emerge tomorrow.

It has been a news event from start to finish. Both Murdochs have sat through hours of questioning by members of parliament. Many matters have been discussed. Rupert Murdoch has weathered the verbal parliamentary onslaught with a remarkable quantity of stamina given his advanced age. James has done much better. While it appears that Rupert was simply unaware of what was happening on the editorial floor at News of the World, it is far too early at this point (it's 2.30am as I write and it'll be later by the time I finish this post) to digest all aspects of the testimony given this day in the committee room. James Murdoch's rhetorical abilities have probably helped to save the company from embarassment in the short term but longer-term there is still a way to go before this scandal will have played itself out fully.

The fact that NotW contributed a mere one percent of News Corporation's profits highlights a problem for Rupert Murdoch. Corporate governance was the topic that hearing started on and despite the apparently heartfelt apology with which RM closed the proceedings it still remains a subject the company will have to address in future. But the hearings are to continue despite the efforts of the attacker and despite Wendi Deng's swift defence of her 80-year-old husband. Deng can protect Rupert from a plate of shaving foam but she cannot protect him against accusations of cultural rot, and this was suggested by members of the committee. The culture within News is certainly lacking in process - Bruce Guthrie says as much in his biography - and the evidence in the present case underscores this weakness.

People will remember Deng's smart move out of her chair, in her black pencil skirt, in the direction of the shaving foam attacker. The image of an octogenarian being physically threatened will remain in memory for a long time. It was a close shave. But until the British press scans through the transcript, until the police investigations are completed, until the two inquiries have played out in full - we will not really know how culpable these two men were in the crimes committed at NotW. How far up the chain of command the taint will spread is still a matter of conjecture and uncertainty.

Discussing things openly raises awareness but it can also highlight gaps, and so is doubly useful. 'Awareness' is an oft-used word and when matched with 'raising' or 'lowering' refers to how much people in the community think about something. I've been participating in the #ruralmh hashtag on Twitter a fair bit of late because it is available and interesting. People participate. Things are discussed. The awareness of the participants is raised. As for the gap, it's obvious to anyone who closely follows what passes for reporting on mental health and suicide in the nation's newspapers. While there are over 5 people who kill themselves every day the number of news stories about suicide is very small indeed.

On a related note, the reporting of mental health is also pretty bad, although more prevalent than for suicide. You might read about a man tasered by police so many times that he suffers a heart attack, which can be sort of like suicide by proxy - for the man was most likely experiencing an 'episode'. Psychotic episodes are common. You may not know from looking at people as they walk down the street but it's more than likely that one of them is experiencing heightened anxiety brought on by - a number of reasons. People don't often show the severity of their anxiety. It may only manifest itself in a higher-than-normal pulse or breathing rate. It may be that a person you are talking to suddenly stands up from their seat, makes an excuse, and leaves the party. When someone kills someone else due to an episodic attack we hear about it, likewise when a person has to be restrained due to a psychotic episode and as a result of poor handling by the people doing the restraint, dies - we hear about it. A man with a knife on the street gets reported.

What doesn't get reported in these cases, as in the rare cases of suicide that get reported, is the backstory. And this is the real story. The emotional rollercoaster leading up to the catastrophic final act - the overdose of sleeping pills, the kitchen knife brandished on a public street - is manifestly out of view. We never know what happened to bring events to pass.

Mindframe is a government-funded initiative that aims to assist the media, among others, to better report on mental health issues. Their website gives police, for example, tips on how to talk with the media.

Among the things recommended is referring journalists to the police media unit. There are guidelines as to language that should be avoided, words to use in preference to others, and the types of facts to relay to the media. These are worthy points to start from but until the media begin to report more frequently they're not going to help an awful lot. In fact, most coppers will anyway refer you to the media unit due to internal guidelines that control (very tightly in my experience) not just what can be said but who can say it.

Journalists are under the impression, moreover, that they should not report on suicide. When I was starting out as a freelance journo I had the opportunity on one occasion to talk with a reporter from a major metropolitan tabloid. "We don't report on suicides," he told me. And I've since paid attention to such reporting, finding it to be true. Even if a journalist were to go to the police they would likely find themselves blocked from access to the type of information their editors would want to read. And they would move on - the relentless pressure to produce stories on a daily basis means that you can't expend resources as lavishly on reporting mental health and suicide as the topic deserves. There is a huge unmet demand for stories on these issues but the police are renowned for the amount of control they exercise over messages aimed at the media, reporters are hamstrung by tight deadlines, and the learned bias is to say nothing. So the inherent dynamics of the system of information production mean that there will be less revealed than is necessary.

What is the answer? Mindframe publishes statistics showing how many briefings have been carried out in a given timeframe. There are help sheets for the police that can be downloaded to a mobile phone. There are discussions with the media and joint projects that surface occasionally. But until a better routine is established to drive the overall performance of mental health and suicide reporting there will not be an increase in public awareness. I suggest that editors establish a regular mental health beat in their newsrooms that will enable the reporter to spend the time necessary to achieve a useful and rounded story whenever there is an opportunity to report. Police should be more forthcoming with information that will be useful to the media - and hence to the public. And the editors themselves should think about their role in the public sphere and how their actions on a daily basis can influence community perceptions so as to reduce the power of stigma, for example, or increase the number of times a friend asks, 'Are you OK?'

With the News of the World soap opera in its second week we're now over the initial shock we experienced at the news that NotW journalists paid private investigators to hack into the mobile phones of crime victims, and that they paid police for information. Two senior executives in Rupert Murdoch's empire have stepped down including Rebekah Brooks, CEO of News International (Murdoch's British company) who was NotW editor at the time the hacking was prevalent. With the passing of days various experts have entered the field of punditry notably, for the purposes of the present blog post, Michael Gawenda, who has written a piece for ABC The Drum in which he shows surprise at the hypocrisy of journalists who have expressed outrage at the machinations of the British tabloid newspaper.

Honestly, is there a journalist in Australia with any sort of time served in this trade who was genuinely shocked by the revelations of the way journalism was done on the News of The World? Or who will be genuinely shocked by the revelations still to come, not just about the now defunct News of the World but about other News International titles and beyond that, about the tabloids owned by other media companies in the UK?

If there are any, they ought to be doing some other trade.

Gawenda is Director of the Centre for Advanced Journalism at Melbourne University and so presumably is involved in some form of teaching of young students, those who bring their ideals into the practice of journalism, who may even have dreams of changing the world for the better by getting involved in what Gawenda refuses to label a profession ("We are not a profession like lawyers and doctors and should not pretend that we are," he writes). He would also be in some way responsible for setting the tone around campus, in terms of expectations for aspiring journalists. So I was shocked to read this:

So it's okay to hack the phone of Hugh Grant - who is now a moral arbiter of what is ethical!- because NoW readers want the goss on Grant and people like him, including politicians, especially if it is salacious which means getting the story invariably involves an invasion of privacy.

No, in fact it's not OK to hack the phone of Hugh Grant and Gawenda should be trying to prise journalists away from celebrity gossip, which is an easy and high-GI gig that produces short-term satisfaction but should not be confused with the kind of journalism a person of Gawenda's stature could more profitably endorse. At issue here is not just phone hacking. At issue is the entire celebrity-watching industry that encourages the type of shenanigans NotW journos found themselves caught up in. In fact, journalism should be more like a profession. Gawenda notes that the Australian arm of News Corp has belatedly loaded its Code of Conduct to its websites.

What's the code of conduct for A Current affair and Today Tonight for instance? I am my brother's and sister's keeper - these programs employ journalists and they are my colleagues for better or for worse - but are we operating on the same ethical standards? What about the Fairfax papers? Where's the discussion with their readers of the ethical challenges they face in this time of technological revolution? And this time when journalism is being shamed.

As if all journalists were involved in the type of low-rent manufacture of social bugbears that those tabloid TV shows routinely engage in. Manifestly, Fairfax papers do not operate at the same level as these TV shows and it's a little obtuse of Gawenda to suggest otherwise. I have always tried to be an ethical journalist even to the extent that I transcribe interviews in their entirety and do this irksome work all by myself because it is the only way that I can achieve complete accuracy - and be utterly confident that the transcript is faithful to the recording. I need to know in my bones that the material I use to write stories is without blemish in the least of its elements. I also make sure that I do not mislead interview subjects as to the type of story that I will write, to the extent that I will contact a person interviewed to tell them if the story plan has materially changed in a way that might surprise them - I don't want them to be upset when they see the final product in the magazine.

Gawenda seems to be satisfied with the way journalism is conducted in Australia (let alone the rest of the world). He seems not to worry about 'he-said-she-said' journalism, which is so prevalent and which inflames the public consumption in the same way as junk food accelerates the process of digestion - so that the product is quickly exhausted and a new fix is required to keep the machine running. He seems not to be concerned about the shortage of funds that exacerbates this kind of journalism. And with his brass-tacks demeanour and lack of high-mindedness he seems to think that journalism not only cannot but should not get better and more effectively address the problem of making information that will sustain a responsible and successful body politic. He seems to have a low opinion of humanity, a jaundiced eye, and the taint of hard liquor on his breath.

One of the least-examined aspects of the NotW case is that it was the people, who created the momentum necessary to prosecute action against Murdoch's newspaper. The journalists who initially reported the wrongdoing were partly responsible and kudos must go to The Guardian for living up to its name. But the sense of moral outrage that has led to Parliamentary hearings, standings-down, the flight of advertisers, criminal prosecutions, independent inquiries, and phone calls to apologise - all this is due to the will of the people. Gawenda should be taking the moral high ground and asking that journalists do even more to ensure that their craft performs more like a profession. I want to consider myself as a professional not in the mundane sense that helps me navigate the jobs page of the daily broadsheet, but in the deeper sense that I profess to hold certain skills and standards as necessary for the performance of my work.

Only by doing so can the media industry begin to work toward a better future where the kind of practices that have led to the current debacle are shunned by the least-principled practitioner and so never happen again. Risk management experts will tell you about weak links. They would also say in respect of the NotW case, in all probability, that Murdoch's business style is clearly unsustainable because it caused the corporate crisis we now watch unfolding. Unsustainable business practices should be publicly discussed with the aim of finding a more sustainable way foward. Unfettered competition between only privately-owned media companies is not sustainable, in the same way that the kind of practices that led to the GFC were not sustainable. Something else - and here we get back to codes of conduct and the notion of the 'professional journalist' - is needed.

Watching John Hartigan perform on the ABC's 730 program last night I was unhappy. Hartigan, CEO of News Limited, the Australian arm of News Corp, is a polished performer and he demonstrated yesterday a suitable quantity of professional diffidence although the constant movement of his hands struck me as slightly defensive (news editors are accustomed to be the ones asking the questions, not the ones answering them) especially since Leigh Sales, his interviewer, held back a fair amount of justified indignation - which is the default pose of the News journo after all. The Australian belongs to the ideological right in the media space and is often at odds with the ABC - where journalists actively observe the organisation's code of conduct - on matters of editorial approach. Certainly, News Limited vehicles participate in the agenda-pushing activity that goes on, with more enthusiasm than does the ABC, in my opinion. So Sales was actually quite kind to Hartigan given the volatile nature of the backchannel relationship. Once the initial back-and-forth about the News of the World scandal had been aired, Sales turned to the real meat of the encounter which is the "bullying" of politicians that News vehicles engage in with - what many would say was - unusual relish. Here's what transpired.

HARTIGAN: "Look, I think we take them to their official capacity and responsibilities. I don't believe we ever overstep. Yes, it's a love-hate relationship and sometimes it's loving and sometimes it's very hateful. But I don't think, generally speaking, that we don't exceed our authority."

SALES: "The independent MP Rob Oakshott believes that since he backed Julia Gillard to form government that some of the News Limited reporting about him has been, to quote him, 'malicious and shamelessly unfair' because they disagreed with the decision that he made. Do you see examples of that in your publications?"

HARTIGAN: "Look, I think that we've been very aggressive with Rob Oakshott as we have with the other independents."

SALES: "Unfairly aggressive?"

HARTIGAN: "I wouldn't have thought so. I think his electorate, which is largely a conservative electorate, asks questions of him and we reflect those questions."

SALES: "The Age reported in June last year that you personally told a meeting of senior NSW police that they could choose to work with News Limited or not. And that paper reported the police took that as a threat, that if they didn't cooperate with your group's reporters they would receive negative coverage. Are they right in that interpretation?"

HARTIGAN: "No they're not. In fact it's the opposite. The police commissioner at that time said to me that he had no intention of working with the media in this country. He then went about - in my view - a series of leaking to an opposition newspaper organisation. But he instigated that. I went there to really open the bounds of having a relationship with him. He chose not to."

SALES: "So what did you mean when you said 'you can work with us or against us'?"

HARTIGAN: "No, I didn't say that. What he said was that he had no intention of working with the media. He was the new police commissioner and he chose to go about his way in a very different and not open way, that I would have thought he would have."

SALES: "And what did you say to that?"

HARTIGAN: "I said, 'Well that's his initiative. If he plans to do that ...' I didn't question that."

SALES: "A number of senior government ministers have told 730's political editor Chris Uhlmann that the believe News Limited is doing all it can to force regime change in Australia, that they want the Gillard government out. Stephen Conroy's said that on the record. Is that the case?"

HARTIGAN: "Look, you know, I've heard that that has been said. Interestingly noone has stood up to say 'Hey, it's me!' And I would suggest that's a whispering campaign and like most whispering campaigns it has no element of truth."

SALES: "Some of the example that people point to are things like Anthony Albanese has said that News Limited papers have run inaccurate stories, Stephen Conroy has complained that the coverage of the NBN, for example, is skewed to be negative and not balanced. What do you say to those examples?"

HARTIGAN: "Well, I think most people would think that the BER program was a sham and very badly organised. And I think that some of our newspaper reflected that very strongly. Some of the other issues, I think, the NBN, you know, Australians are asking questions about the transparency of huge amounts of billions of dollars. So I would suggest that we're acting in the public interest."

SALES: "So you stand by The Australian's coverage of the NBN as being fair and balanced?"

HARTIGAN: "I do, yep."

SALES: "There was a meeting of News Limited executives and senior journalists and editors in Carmel in the United States recently. Again, Gillard government ministers have told 730 that they believe that after that meeting News Limited publications escalated their anti-Gillar government campaign. Was their any directive issued along those lines?"

HARTIGAN: "I think it's very necessary to say what that meeting was about. We have a lot of meetings. We're a global company and we're going through arguably the greatest change in media at the moment. You're seeing all sorts of digital channels, you're seeing audiences moving around. That was about seeing what is the best practice for us as a company, as a corporation."

SALES: "So there's no company-wide directive, then, that you want the Gillard government out?"

HARTIGAN: "Absolutely not. We're a company of values like most companies, and we have very implicit values. We have things that we think as a company and individually as editors that need to be done. One of them is a leadership vacuum by a minority government. But there's lots of leadership vacuums around Australia at the moment. You know, there lots of issues."

SALES: "If you disagree that News Limited is running a campaign against the Gillard government where, then, do you think is the source of this widespread view among ministers? Why is it held?"

HARTIGAN: "Well I think it's heald because, largely, we're the only organisation that really takes it up to the government and, also, when they're also at record low levels of public support. I think that endears that sense that, 'Hey, there's one organisation out to get us.' Rather than the performance of the party."

SALES: "You don't think you could say that the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age and the ABC apply a reasonable amount of scrutiny to the Gillard government?"

HARTIGAN: "They do but they also feed vary largely ... They get preferred treatment because they tend to support most of the government initiatives. The Australian doesn't. It does on occasion but it really is very strident in the way that it covers politics. And I don't argue it's really the only newspaper in Australia that properly covers politics, national politics."

Back to my commentary here.

There's an exceptionalism at play here in Hartigan's words that probably serves a lot of the troops in the organisation well at different times, especially when they feel besieged as a result of run-ins with external entities. When the time comes to making a stand it's therefore easy for journalists to say "We're different and, yes, this will be unpleasant but we're performing a public duty here". This attitude can only inflame the situation because a wild animal when cornered will always turn and fight. So every headline and every editorial, every story placement on the corporate website and every picture selection - designed to depict, say, the prime minister as domineering or cowed - is animated by a preemptive supposition that thousands of people out there in the Australian public sphere hate what you are doing. There would a permanent sneer on the face of an anthropormorphised masthead, a sneer cemeted in place by endless disappointments anticipated and countless rebuffs looked upon as a birthright. "Go ahead," the once-again despised editor thinks, "Make my day."