The voice of the media

Media. Mass communication.  A powerful vehicle to deliver messages to the masses quickly. Arguably one of the most powerful influences on society, vital in developing societal norms. Second only to the Government, which has the power to dictate media activity, or at least we are led to believe it does.

In the Australian media recently we have seen a few examples of the power of our media outlets. At what point does their quest for quality coverage cross the line? Below are a few productive and not so productive outputs of the media from a social perspective.

Solving crime

Distributing information and images / footage that may lead to a rapid arrest of a criminal or person of interest, enhanced recently through the use of social media by the police.  This is in our favour as we want to ensure a functional society, eradicating anti social behaviour as quickly as possible.

Driving community sanctioned rules which in turn shape Government laws

The media heavily influences public perception of the effectiveness of Government. The new 1:30am lock out and 3am last drinks laws were primarily fuelled by community outcry over the continued hospitalisation and in some cases death of young children, the victims of callous drunken attacks.  Government acted swiftly to pacify the community that ‘something would be done’ – a campaign which the community would never have known about without extensive media coverage.

Education

Media coverage enables us to understand and read about challenges and achievements experienced by members of society beyond our own location.  Its great to hear what may be happening in the world of our domestic and International counterparts and where we can obtain learnings.

At the end of various articles I find it quite useful to see relevant contact points e.g. an article on Cancer call Cancer Council Helpline.  An article relating to mental illness try Lifeline etc.

Driving forward a progressive society focused on marriage equality is another role of the media.

r1198226_15483016

Wasted resources

There has been that much media coverage on the Corby case the past decade I think we could have educated every Australian on human rights atrocities the world over by now.  Is this of value to us as society? Perhaps as a deterrent, which wouldn’t require a decade of media coverage.  The implications of ‘excessive Corby coverage’ has been far reaching with the Indonesian Government threatening to revoke Corby’s parole and The Australian Federal Police raiding the offices for information on a potential interview deal.

Publicity

Marketers are familiar with the value unpaid media exposure gives their product due to its vast reach and timeliness of message distribution. This in turn has the counter effect of negative publicity which can be damaging to a brand and business.  For example, the recent Qantas redundancy coverage.  Yes Alan Joyce could have made different business decisions earlier and Qantas may be in good shape today but life is full of could have, should have, would have but didn’t.  While some industries experience challenges based on the evolution of society e.g. car manufacturers others experience dramatic growth e.g. technology firms.

Negativity

The vast majority of media articles are negative e.g. about crime, misfortune etc.  How does this impact society? What are the implications of all this negativity? Is it possible to become tunnel visioned? thinking we are living in a crime filled society when in fact the stories we read represent only a small percentage of the activities of Australians.

We recently saw the exposure of the suicide of Charlotte Dawson.  A media personality renowned for a very public battle with depression.  Up until very recently media outlets did not publicise suicides for fear of suicide contagion. I assume this change the past year or so is in aid of mental illness to drive greater awareness and to publish the support services available.

Bias / Credibility

Can journalists disclose ‘the truth’ about anyone who is a major shareholder / owner / sponsor / regulatory authority (e.g. Government) or do they adopt a second set of principles to remain loyal and to keep financial incentives in tact? Are all messages from qualified sources?

Communist societies control messages so as not to distort desired public opinion for example, North Korea.  Is this beneficial to society? Should we be grateful for the freedom of speech we see from our writers today?

What next?

Mass media has a powerful voice – the key is how you use that voice and who determines what messages are most productive for society. Perhaps the answer is better ethics training for all journalists as it appears they are the key determinants for the mass communication received by society which in turn shapes our decisions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-24/mcdonell-media-frenzy-descends-on-mh370-mystery/5340242

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/new-laws-may-allow-filming-in-nsw-courts/story-fn3dxiwe-1226864315601

Advertisements

Tax. “The Budget”. NDIS. No comprende? Mucho importante.

I have avoided trying to understand the complexities of anything finance related my whole life.  I knew taxes existed, I always paid them, I knew they were partly used to subsidise ‘communal’ services and that they went to the Government…but that’s about the extent of my knowledge on tax. Until recently.

I was asked to complete an analysis of the FY14 Commonwealth Budget and boy was I excited!  Not really.  However, in pushing through this riveting piece of work I discovered that I genuinely found it interesting.  I decided to concentrate my analysis on the reform of key welfare initiatives and finished it feeling a lot less mystified and repelled by the notion of tax.

Did you know 35% of our taxes in Australia go toward supporting the welfare of our citizens? New initiatives like the National Disability Insurance scheme which will see a $20.3b investment over 7 years, will sure go a long way to providing much needed support to people with disability.  People with disability is a phrase that describes the 460,000 Australians who are less able than most as well as family, friends, carers or organisations that actively support them (Budget 13-14 2013 NDIS Policy).  The scheme will see increased supports so that people with disability can exercise more choice and control over their lives and achieve their full potential.  This in turn maximises the potential of the support networks of those with disability by broadening the support available to them.

Commonwealth Budget 13-14

I was recently privileged to hear Sally Richards (Australian disability advocate) speak at the International People with Disability Day.  One of Sally’s four sons was born severely intellectually disabled with her husband taking his own life a few years ago, unable to cope with the added pressure while battling mental illness.  I was truly moved by Sally’s story and her commitment to ensuring that people with disability are able to make a valid contribution in society.  Sally’s amazing courage, determination and sacrifice have led her son to now live in his own townhouse, with a carer, and work part time delivering mail.  Sally believes the NDIS is just one more step in fostering better access and inclusion for people with disability, which then has the flow on effect of supporting carers and family members in maximising their potential too.

For Australians not living with disability the increase in Medicare levy from 1.5%-2% of taxable income may not be welcomed, although this is an incremental investment compared to the $20.3 billion forecast to be generated for people with disability as a result of the increase in Medicare levy. We will all be touched by disability at some point in our lives, whether we obtain a disability or know someone who requires assistance.  DisabilityCare Australia will also incorporate the National Injury Insurance Scheme (NIIS), ensuring those who are affected by a ‘catastrophic’ injury can receive supports on a no-fault basis with reduced litigation and greater access to care required (Budget 13-14 2013 NDIS Policy).

http://everyaustraliancounts.com.au

Policymakers and Treasury aim to strike a balance between the State’s economic priorities and social outcomes through varying the investment allocated to certain initiatives every financial year. The key initiatives across welfare reform demonstrate a focus on research for informed policy making, inflation adjustments and labour force participation incentives to drive increased spending.  Effective budget allocation ensures resources are allocated to increase social capital through reducing the costs of anti-social behaviour and driving social cohesion for a fully functioning society which results in a strong economy (Cox 1995).