The mass media moving the masses

I am back from a rather long trip overseas. Mostly a holiday although with the ususal travail of travel.

Away from the keyboard, disconnected from the daily mayhem of the local media, gives some perspective.

The world is a small place. No matter where we were, mainly Europe, the topics of conversation were the same. The headlines, the focus of conversation and debate on our telvisions all the same. The focus of conversation with fellow tourists and indeed local passers-by, all the same. The tone was also similar. Disdainful of this, praising of that, surprising uniformity of opinion on even complex issues, where alternative views were often glossed over or even neglected.

The topics seem to be set by circumstance; the war in Yemen, an election in the UK, an asylum boat sinking in the Mediterranean, but the focus and tone is set by the media. Be it print, radio or television, the topic of conversation becomes the same. Like the under-six football team journos seem to all follow the same topic at least over the 'news cycle'. The tone also seemed very similar, as if a single person was mouthing the opinions of the minions of journalists. As result of a collective group-think dominates our ear-waves.

In my relatively few posts I have often mentioned the media, and you may surmise I have a 'bee in my bonnet' about the media. Indeed I do.

I am concerned that our media has too much influence on our daily lives and that this influence is too uniform, often stifling debate and apparently pushing an agenda.

This does not mean I don't recognise the value of free media in any democratic society. On the contrary, the Fourth Estate is an essential component of any democratic society and I would do nothing to curtail its freedom to investigate and report on any aspect of our society.

However I believe our democratic freedoms will be at risk, when the media can influence government policies and public opinion to even change governments without the democratic control of the society it is meant to serve.

I don't believe this is the case in Australia, yet. However there is already a tendency for some in the media to limit debate and to try to funnel opinions without reasoned argument. This tendency is not limited to our media of course. Disruptive demonstrations have been part and parcel of 'normal' politics, and most disturbingly, in recent times it has even invaded our University campuses. However it is the integrity of the media that is critical. Since we rely on our free media to not only investigate and report, but also to call-out arguments not supported by the facts, to give voice to alternate views and to encourage reasoned debate.

As consumers of the media's product we must resist this tendency to corral our views. We can do so by using direct and indirect communications ( through social media) to highlight lack of balanced debate, topics which are not being discussed and to call-out open bias.

Moreover we should insist that the ABC, our public broadcaster enforces its own very well written code of practice, which requires it to maintain accuracy, diversity and impartiality.  I have strong reservations that this is currently the case, but will leave that argument for another day.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

A Wel-fairer system

The recent McClure report has highlighted the plight of our welfare system.

Our welfare budget is currently $150 B / yr.

This is spent in a rather complex array of payments to qualifying individuals, be they unemployed, sick, disabled, children, so on. The system is complex, expensive to operate and arguably mis-directed, creating disincentives to recipients to seek work and allocating payments to those not 'in need'.

$150 B is a lot of money! Could it be allocated in a more efficient and more effective way? McClure has suggested a much simplified system that is currently being scrutinized by the government and will no doubt lead to a response over the next few months.

I have only had a brief introduction to the McClure report so cannot comment on it, other than note that it still seems complex. 

It starts by classifying welfare recipients according to various criteria and then establishes how each is to be treated by the system. Although much simpler than the current bureaucratic nightmare, I wonder if this is the right approach?

Welfare, at its core, is intended for those who, for whatever reason, are 'in need'. Simply stated, they cannot afford to pay for their day to day living and medical expenses themselves. It can be due to unemployment, hopefully temporary, illness, disability, etc. No matter the cause, the problem is they have insufficient earnings for their needs.

So why not use earnings as the sole criterion for determining who receives welfare?

Under this alternative approach welfare recipients would all have to pass an earnings test. The test itself would take into account only a few factors, such as number and age of dependents, special needs for the physically disabled, and the value of assets for high nett worth individuals.

Welfare payments would go to those whose earnings were below the benchmark minimum earnings (BME) for their group. The size of the payment would be equal to the difference between their current earning and the BME for their group, but would be subject to an adjustment to ensure there was always an incentive to work. The details for this adjustment have to be thought through and I accept there is some 'devil in this detail'. For the current overview suffice it to note that the adjustment would be sufficient to ensure there is a financial benefit for a welfare recipient to secure employment if there is any opportunity to do so.

I can see two key advantages of this approach. Firstly, it would be simple to administer and easy to understand These criteria are too often ignored when framing government policies. And Secondly it would bring a visible 'fairness' into the system by ensuring that only those in need received welfare payments and that the value they received was related directly to the extent of their need.

I have not done the sums on this (yet), but feel that by eliminating mis-directed expenditure, this alternative approach would deliver a higher welfare benefit to those in genuine need without increasing the overall welfare budget .


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

'Fairness' is in the eyes of the beholder

Much has been said about the lack of 'Fairness' of the 2014 Hockey budget. But what is 'fair' to one may well be 'unfair' to another.

In the table below I have compiled a short list of questions of fairness, reflecting our society. What do you think ?

Is it “fair”?

Is it fair for Labour to now reject budget savings of some $5b that it proposed when it was in government?

Is it fair for the senate to reject withdrawing a tax cut that was introduced to compensate households for the impact of the carbon tax now that tax has been abolished?

Is it fair to run on going budget deficits funded by borrowing and thereby putting the burden on future generations?

Is it fair for politicians to make promises to the electorate that they later abandon when in office?

Is it fair that only the top 20% of earners pay more taxes than they receive in payments from the government?

Is it fair to have penalty rates which prevent employers hiring available workers?

Is it fair to have any welfare payments that are not means tested?

Is it fair to have lower paid workers through their taxes subsidise asset rich part pensioners?

Is it fair that superannuants do not pay tax on their income or earnings?

My guess is that all of us will think of some as fair and some not. But that is the point. "Fairness" is in the eyes of the beholder.

Want money? Tell us who pays!

Cacophony of demands

Dissatisfaction abounds. Education, healthcare, security, indigenous affairs, welfare, all beckon for resources with increasingly shrill calls to action. Not a day passes without some individual or group arguing their case in the media.

The demands are often simple and specific, requesting a justifiable "investment" of public funds either to achieve greater benefits or to avert decline and social costs. The claims are substantiated by statistics and success stories, and although many of the statistics, I suggest, would not pass muster by any but the most cursory examination, and that many of the claimed benefits are not directly measurable, lets take them at face value. No doubt there are many, many projects which would provide great benefits to our common wealth. But where can the money come from? This is rarely raised as part of a demand. After all the focus is on the problem and the benefits of investment. Any discussion about funding could be a distraction. Even in those cases where there is a suggestion of how to fund the investment, it is by general statements such as ; "a new levy", "general revenue", or "the welfare budget".

Limited sources of funds

Ultimately the target for all these calls is the ''magic pudding" of public money; state or federal governments. Since these governments are not sitting around with loads of cash, quite the contrary, all governments seem to be in debt up to their necks, all funding can only be achieved by increasing taxes, borrowing or offsetting any new spending by cutting another program.

Raising taxes is an anathema to the electorate, and consequently for politicians who want to be re-elected. Hence it is generally avoided, until all other avenues have been exhausted.

The second option is taking the money from another program. Unfortunately politicians find this option difficult as it always carries a backlash from unhappy voters who lose funding for their projects.

Finally, borrowing which is often the last option standing. Borrowing is a mixed bag. It can be readily justified when the expected revenue generated by the target program is greater than the expected outlay. This will apply to projects which in one way or another add to productive capacity. However borrowing for improved welfare or social services is effectively spending money you haven't yet earned and is unsustainable. Consider it as borrowing from your grand-children. By the way much of our current deficit is due to expenditure on social services and hence borrowing to pay these deficits is effectively asking our grand-children to fund our lifestyle.

Whenever a politician announces a new initiative using public funds, which have not been budgeted, the money is being borrowed. They are spending money we don't have.

Squelching Squeaky calls

With the many conflicting demands money and resources what should a society do? How can a society rationally distribute its wealth and resources and satisfy the many conflicting demands of special interest groups?

Currently it seems it is the squeakiest door that gets oiled and this has generated a cacophony of demands.

I suggest we could lower the volume by demanding that whenever any group advocates an investment of public funds they should identify the source of the funds they require.

If they suggest there should be new taxes, tell us how much and who pays.

If it is to be by borrowing, prove that the investment will generate greater revenue over time.

If it is to be from general revenue, then tell us who you are asking to forego their funding.

Fat chance I hear you say? I guess so. After all why would any advocate want to weaken their case and perhaps generate opponents to their cause? Sure they will resist, but we the public, directly and through the media, should demand it.We should insist that the funding question be answered before any money is spent. This also applies to our politicians, who often make funding commitments without due consideration of budget constraints. It is all too easy to spend future money, especially when it belongs to someone else.

 Our media should never flinch from asking the question, "where is the money coming from?"



Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Mischievous media magnifies mayhem

Following closely on the heels of Australia Day's "knightmare", the Queensland election disaster extended the criticism of our PM, now by deposed LNP MPs. Any hint of a leadership challenge, is like a drop of blood to our of media sharks, immediately generating a frenzy.

As if the world had stopped turning, not a news bulletin, newspaper, political commentator, twitter-face-blog-post goes without the questions pertaining to this one issue; "Was Abbott's speech good enough?", "Who will challenge?",  a survey is produced showing the popularity of potential contenders, Bishop has not said she would not run, or has not denied it enough, or there was a delay in denying it.

And aren't the media enjoying themselves? You can see it on their faces. The excited tone, the animation, the energy, the overt joking and 'grinning'. This game certainly looks like fun. Of course everyone gets on the bandwagon. When the frenzy is on, no journalist wants to be left out.

Who can blame them? It is much easier than the hard slog of reporting on economic or social matters which require facts, analysis, and real journalistic effort. It is much more fun. It is new, exciting, titillating.

Who can blame them, if the opposition parties are also feeding the frenzy with whatever morsels they can muster to keep the story going. After all there is an advantage to be had.

Who can blame them, if indeed the electorate is lapping it up. Those on the Left side of politics remember too well the all too recent Leadership challenges of the Labour government. They are now pleased to have the 'shoe on the other foot'. They enjoy the discomfiture of the Right, and hang on every word, and discuss it at every opportunity.

I am not blaming this on anti-Abbott, anti-Liberal media.This is not a case of media bias, although certainly some bias is apparent. It is the way independent media fight for attention. It is the media's 'raison d'etre', each vying to be the one who tells the story, the one to best analyse the situation and who can best anticipate and predict what will happen. They have many good reason to report this story, after all; "There is something happening, we need to tell our audience about all the possibilities. After all we are talking about who will govern this country of ours. This is important."

And once the fire is started, it is hard to stop. All potential contributors to the story are canvassed repeatedly, and they are quoted directly or as 'anonymous' sources. Like embers in a fire, each mention, each nuance of difference re-ignites a brush fire elsewhere and the story spreads, into actions and re-actions. Who knows when and where the current 'fire' will lead?

Our media act as amplifiers, increasing the volume and duration of whatever occurs. Small gaffes are repeated, explored, expanded and extended. Large gaffes become leadership questions, become leadership instability, become on going chaotic government.

Is it just a coincidence that in step with the evolution of the always-on news media and social media over the past decade, we have seen  greater volatility in electorate sentiment, and the rise of unstable and chaotic governments.

But how well does this serve our society? How well does this media maelstrom serve the people it represents?

I lament this unedifying picture of democracy in the 21st century.