I read a blog post the other day that debated the acumen in placing tertiary-level interns at the helm of an organisation’s social media profile, simply because we’re often conceived of as “digital natives” and social media mavens.

There are definitely PR practitioners who are disparaging of our status as ‘digital natives,’ and who recognise that the length of your Facebook timeline or how much you tweet doesn’t necessarily lend itself to good social media management in a PR context. Yeah, I’d probably agree.

In an age where social media is such an important tool for marketing and public relations, should firms not be taking more care with the personnel behind their digital profiles?

[p]

I have a friend in my course who just last week was telling me she’d contacted a PR professional in Sydney – a business associate of her father – and had asked about potential internship opportunities. The response she received was, to say the least, blunt and completely demeaning. This lady mounted a grand-scale attack on her lack of experience in the field and argued that personal social media literacy maketh a PR practitioner not. And the rant continued, condemning organisations for taking on young graduates under the guise that they’re properly equipped to handle a company’s social media presence because they’re digital natives, not digital immigrants. She then proceeded to demean our entire degree, asking what Professional Communication even was, and questioning it’s relevance to the PR field (safe to say that my friend is planning to send back a scathing email in response, and won’t be lending her skills to that PR firm anytime soon).

The post further reminded me of a chance meeting I had with the social media manager of Nine Network Australia (or Nine News, my memory fails me) back when I was interning with their Canberra bureau last year. The first thing that struck me was that they only had one social media manager – this seemed odd for such a large and successful media organisation, no? This person (who shall remain nameless and genderless – God forbid my ramblings cause them professional strife!) seemed to conceive of their position as very low-level in the organisation, and having little to no significance in the scheme of things. But this view hadn’t really come from this person, it had stemmed from the attitudes towards his position of his colleagues and bosses. The way the person talked about their position in terms of hierarchy was very self-deprecating. So in this sense, I think bureaucracies like Nine Network Australia still don’t see the value of a skilled social media manager, and perhaps this is why interns are so frequently put in charge of managing an organisation’s social media presence, despite perhaps not having the complete skill set to do so. Too soon are interns and recent graduates being entrusted with the responsibility of social media management, rather than occupying a position with a lower level of autonomy and a higher level of managerial monitoring.

So, what qualities should companies be looking for in social media interns? Great writing skills, a knack for innovation and creativity, the ability to communicate, enthusiasm, and dedication. Perhaps the problem isn’t that they’re chucking grads and interns behind their social media profiles, but the quality of PR education these ‘digital natives’ are ingesting. Food for thought.

Categories: Public Relations

Tagged: Digital Natives, Internships, Nine Network Australia, PR, PR Graduates, Public Relations, Social Media

The Viability of e-Voting: is the internet inevitable?

victorialandale

Posted on April 1, 2014

A very belated post: my article for The Melbourne Globalist, published late last year. Enjoy.

The recent Australian democratic elections have left many Australians wondering why, in an age where the Internet seems to dominate all other aspects of public and private life, we are still left paper-and-pencil voting. Victoria Landale reports.

This year’s elections saw claims of “rigged” results and multiple incidents of human error. One-thousand misplaced votes made all the difference in the electorate of Indi, and the discovery of 750 votes tallied against the wrong pre-poll location mid-way through the vote count in Fairfax lead to conspiracy claims by Palmer United Party founder and wealthy Queensland businessman Clive Palmer.

It’s these kind of “human errors” that computer-based voting could eradicate according to Australian Electoral Commissioner Ed Killesteyn – but at what cost?

In an article published in The Age last month[1], Mr Killesteyn defended the integrity of the current paper-based voting system, saying that the same level of integrity would be harder to achieve using computer-based systems. “The notion that you could actually materially manipulate the result is, I think, quite implausible,” said Mr Killesteyn. “On the other hand, if you go to computer-based systems where everything is centralized, the risks start to increase that there could be significant manipulation of the results.”

And it is primarily these security concerns that have ensured the democratic domain has remained outside the Internet’s vast sphere of influence.

Opponents of an Internet-facilitated e-voting system argue that system security would be harder to guarantee, which could compromise the integrity of the democratic system and diminish public faith in government competence, as well as the democratic process, in a broader sense. Remote e-voting systems could open voters up to issues of identity theft, voter coercion, and manipulation of results by unauthorized third parties with vested interests.

The benefits of an e-voting system are just as numerous, however. An electronic system, and not necessarily one that relies upon the Internet, holds the potential to increase the efficiency, rapidity, accessibility, and convenience of the electoral system. Electronic voting systems boast rapid tabulation capabilities that could ensure the availability of election results within one hour of the close of the polls[2]. Furthermore, an e-voting system could allow voters who are unable to vote without assistance due to issues of age or disability to vote independently and secretly, which would be a significant improvement.

Far from being a distant device of the far-off future, e-voting has in fact been around in various forms since 2001. The 2001 ACT Legislative Assembly elections saw the ACT Electoral Commission piloting a closed-network electronic kiosk voting system, with significant success. Various forms of electronic voting have since been trialed throughout Australia in order to assist blind or low vision (BLV) voters and Defense personnel serving overseas. In 2011, the New South Wales Government implemented a system called ‘iVote’, which allowed BLV, and disabled or geographically remote citizens to vote remotely via private telephones or the Internet. Significantly, this is the first instance in which any state or territory government has allowed electors to vote in an “uncontrolled” environment, a far cry from the security and stringency proffered by the current paper-and-pencil polling places during an election.

This is one of the major arguments against ‘remote’ voting, as cited in a discussion paper published by the Electoral Council of Australia & New Zealand last month. Unlike current voting practices in which a voter travels to a polling place to cast their vote in a “controlled” and impartial environment, remote voting allows individuals to vote in an environment uncontrolled by election officials, increasing the risk that votes may be coerced or influenced by third parties. Hence, remote voting has the potential to compromise the integrity of the democratic process.

The paper further highlights the necessity of certain digital literacies if the implementation of e-voting were to proceed on a larger scale and to a wider demographic. As age increases, digital literacy decreases – a significant problem considering Australia’s ageing population. Furthermore, full-scale remote e-voting would require universal access to the Internet for all Australian citizens, and up-to-date interfaces.

And let us not forget the social context of public elections. Who doesn’t enjoy walking down to the local school or community centre, buying a Sprite and a snag fresh off the barbie, and having a yarn to your friends and neighbours in line whilst waiting to vote? Could there be anything more quintessentially Australian? Opponents of e-voting cite the election process as a public ritual, sustaining people’s sense of shared civic engagement, postulating that remote e-voting would inevitably diminish or demolish this sense of community engagement. Some critics even go so far as to argue that “e-voting pushes us towards political anomie”[3]

The paper notes that myths of widespread public demand for e-voting systems are largely unfounded, and that an e-voting system would only be implemented on a larger scale following general public petition for such a system, or in a situation where the alternative was no longer viable – for example, in the instance of a paper shortage. As a result, widespread e-voting systems may still be a way off, and, for now, pencil-and-paper systems look to be here to stay.

References

[1] Hurst, D. 2013. Electoral chief cautious about online voting. The Age, [online] September 21, 2013. Available at:http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/electoral-chief- cautious-about-online-voting-20130920-2u5ii.html [Accessed: 4 Oct 2013].

[2] Electoral Council of Australia & New Zealand. 2013. Internet voting in Australian election systems. [report] Australian Electoral Commission.

[3] Valelly, Rick (1999), “Voting Alone: The case against virtual ballot boxes”, The New Republic, September 13 & 20, 1999.

Categories: Journalism, Politics, The Melbourne Globalist

Tagged: AEC, AusPol, Australia, Australian Electoral Commission, e-voting, Elections, Politics, The Melbourne Globalist, Voting

Victorian Equal Opportunities and Human Rights Commission Oration 2013: Geoffrey Robertson QC

victorialandale

Posted on November 24, 2013

Last Tuesday, myself and a friend from the Harvard WorldMUN conference attended the Victorian Equal Opportunities and Human Rights Commission‘s human rights oration for 2013. This year, the oration schedule remarkably coincided with the travel schedule of prominent human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC, a lawyer whose writings I’m rather familiar with on account of his book, Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice, being the required text for a particularly enjoyable class of mine last semester.

The oration was a fantastic mix of well-placed humour and poignantly rational discussion of the human rights issues of the the last century as well as the current period. Robertson made pointed references to the current Australian-Indonesian phone-tapping scandal, and recommended that Prime Minister Abbott follow the example set by President Obama in the phone-tapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel: apologising profusely, assuring the Indonesian President and his wife that phone-tapping isn’t currently happening and won’t happen again, and staging an inquiry into the incident in order to find out why it occurred and who authorised the tap.

Abbott’s refusal to apologise is jeopardising key campaign promises, namely to ‘stop the boats’, whilst also jeopardising the future of Australia’s live export industry in Indonesia. There is nothing shameful about apologising for the actions of the intelligence community of the country you govern.

After the oration had concluded, in a moment of self-proclaimed weakness, I purchased both of Robertson’s books that were on sale at the event, and even managed to get Dreaming Out Loud, his newest book, signed before he left.

[p]

[p]

I recognise my shamefully abundant enthusiasm, and have come to terms with it.

Meeting Robertson and listening to his oration has definitely confirmed that I’m heading in the right direction, pursuing a career in human rights law with a strong international focus, following the completion of my Bachelor of Professional Communication next year.

Categories: Quotes

Cultural Relativism in Human Rights Discourse

victorialandale

Posted on October 11, 2013

This morning I had a debate for one of my subjects this semester, International Human Rights & Law. I argued the affirmative side for the topic “Human rights activists have no right to demand overturning of traditional cultural practices such as female genital mutilation, provided that such practice is supported by members of that culture.”

I thought I’d chuck my powerpoint & debate speech on my blog, for anyone who’s interested.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Victoria, and I’ll be arguing the affirmative side for the topic “Human rights activists have no right to demand overturning of traditional cultural practices such as female genital mutilation, provided that such practice is supported by members of that culture.”

Firstly, let me establish the crux of this debate. We are not debating the relative morality of cultural practices such as female genital mutilation; we are debating whether human rights activists have any precedent upon which to “demand overturning” of deep-rooted cultural practices that conflict with human rights ideology. I’d like to emphasise that the language of this topic, specifically “demand overturning”, intimates forceful overturning, power dynamics, dissent from the cultural group in question, a sense of imperialism, and an inherent hierarchy. To argue against this topic is to hierarchize ideologies.

I’m arguing that communities should possess the right to self-determination, and that progress should be consensual and organic, free from the forceful impositions of Western liberal doctrines. The liberal individualist framework is often at odds with the cultural frameworks of many non-Western societies, and to coerce compliance – even in cases where this would abolish practices that may violate fundamental human rights – is in direct opposition to the egalitarian methodology that liberal Western doctrines purport to abide by.

Lets take a step back, however, and examine the moral basis of this argument. The establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 1940s essentially suggested that there exists an absolute morality, and that moral frameworks couldn’t vary between cultures. This is a universalist argument, affording priority to the demands of the cosmopolitan moral community over all other moral communities, and denying national and subnational ethical autonomy and self-determination.

I’m arguing from a cultural relativist perspective, however, which stipulates that morality is culture-bound, and that universal moral absolutes do not exist. This view first arose in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, when Friedrich Karl von Savigny and Henry Maine asserted that the likelihood that human rights will be respected is a function of cultural and environmental factors unique to particular communities and thus are culture-bound, unlikely to develop with certain cultures. I’d also like to argue that a culture’s moral framework changes over time, citing the example of the White Australia Policy, progressively dismantled between 1949 and 1973, which intentionally favored immigration to Australia from certain European countries, especially Britain. The idea seems abhorrent now, which I would suggest reflects a culture’s capacity for changing collective moralities.

Furthermore, cultural practices such as capital punishment, the Indian practice of sati or widow-burning, the Pakistani practice of honor-killings, female genital mutilation, polygamy, and foot-binding in traditional China, to name a few, are all perceived to be morally justifiable within their cultural context, yet seem morally detestable to most of you in this room, I would argue. Does this not indicate that the perception of morality varies between different cultures?

Concomitant to these ideas of culturally specific moralities are arguments that human rights impositions are symptomatic of Western imperialism. Generally, there are three sources of challenge to the universality of human rights: resurgent Islam, the West itself, and East Asia.

The challenge from resurgent Islam has existed since the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1947, which the Saudi Arabian delegation refused to ratify on the basis of objections to Article 16, relating to free marriage choice, and Article 18, relating to freedom of religion. Of the Declaration, the Saudi delegation said: “the authors of this draft declaration had, for the most part, taken into consideration only the standards recognized by Western civilization and had ignored more ancient civilizations… It was not for the Committee to proclaim the superiority of one civilization over all others or to establish uniform standards for all the countries of the world.”

A second challenge to the universalism perspective comes from within the West itself. A particularly influential vein of political thought maintains that human rights are a “Western construct of limited applicability,” dependent on the human rights traditions of the US, UK, and France, and therefore inapplicable to cultures that do not share this historical matrix of liberal individualism. Michael Ignatieff eloquently elucidates this vein of thought: “Human rights are seen as an exercise in the cunning of Western reason: no longer able to dominate the world through direct imperial rule, the West now masks its own will to power in the impartial, universalizing language of human rights and seeks to impose its own narrow agenda on a plethora of world cultures that do not actually share the West’s conception of individuality, self-hood, agency, or freedom.”

Third and finally, East Asia has been a vocal adversary of human rights ideology, arguing that some cultures are more conducive to human rights than others. East Asian dissenters such as former Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew debate that Asian culture puts community and family ahead of individual rights, democracy, and individual freedom – this evidently being at odds with the individualism central to the human rights framework.

I’d now like to address the detrimental impacts that the forceful abolition of traditional cultural practices can have on a society. In 1993, Samuel Huntington famously postulated, “The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural… The fault lines of civilizations will be the battle lines of the future,” and increasingly Huntington’s hypothesis is proving true. Recently, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution encouraging EU member states to ban the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, sparking widespread outrage within the Jewish community. The Israeli foreign ministry is urging the Council to rescind the resolution because it fosters “anti-religious hatred”. The European Jewish Congress said that any attempt to ban circumcision “sends out a terrible message to European Jews that our practices, and therefore our very presence on this continent, are treated with disdain.” They labeled this “a serious interference in the right to freedom of religion.”

Additionally, Michael Ignatieff argues that values attributed to traditional cultural practices are the essence of social cohesion, and repudiation of these traditions may result in social ostracism. He suggests, “What may appear as mutilation in Western eyes is, in some cultures, simply the price of tribal and family belonging for women. Accordingly, if they fail to submit to the ritual, they lose their place in that world. Choosing to exercise their rights, therefore, may result in social ostracism,” highlighting the important cultural value placed on such practices, and our tendency to misunderstand the values associated with such traditions.

In relation to female genital mutilation, and cultural practices more broadly, both Ignatieff and prominent human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC ponder the role of the wider community within this paradigm. Robertson probes, “… should a culturally sensitive world send surgeons and anesthetic, or rather condemn it as torture and inhumane treatment contrary to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration?” Ignatieff contends activists have an “equal duty to inform women of the medical costs and consequences of these practices and to seek, as a first step, to make them less dangerous for those that choose to undergo them.”

So, what is the role of the human rights activist within this paradigm then? Ignatieff concludes that the West should act in an informative capacity, rather than an authoritative one, and that the final word on harmful traditional practice lies with the community in question. And I quote, “An activist’s proper role is not to make the choices for the women in question, but to enlarge those women’s knowledge of what that choice entails… Human rights are universal not as a vernacular of cultural prescription but as a language of moral empowerment. Their role is not in defining the content of culture but in trying to enfranchise all agents so that they can freely shape that content.”

References

Amongst others:

Donnelly, J. 1984. Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 6 (4), pp. 400-419. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/762182.

Haas, M. 2010. International Human Rights. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Ignatieff, M. 2001. The Attack on Human Rights. Foreign Affairs, 80 (6), pp. 102-116. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20050331.

Robertson, G. 2013. Crimes against humanity. London: Penguin Books.

Zee News. 2013. Israel denounces anti-circumcision resolution. [online] Available at: http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/israel-denounces-anti-circumcision-resolution_881093.html [Accessed: 10 Oct 2013].

Categories: Quotes

Liberal Replete, Local Defeat

victorialandale

Posted on September 12, 2013

With Rudd still warm in his grave and Liberal setting up camp atop the rubble of the democratic landslide that buried him, you’d think this week would’ve been an exultant celebration for all Liberal-inclined political obsessives. The justifiably jubilant celebrations have somewhat caused us to forget, however, that there were indeed some casualties of war this election.

Having campaigned with south-east Melburnian Liberal candidate John Nguyen for the past three months, watching the vote count build against him was an excruciating blow – even more so for him, it goes without saying. I’ve been lucky enough to get to know this wonderful candidate over the last few months, and I can safely say that in terms of dedication to the cause, Mr Nguyen is unparalleled. His aspiration was always secondary to his concern for the people of Chisholm, which was genuine. Knowing all that John had given up to pursue a second attempt at the elusive democratic election – a partnership at renowned accounting firm Ernst & Young; 14 months leave without pay – all whilst working near-12 hour days, seven days a week for this period, it frustrates me to no end to know that a mere 2,000+ votes currently bar him from the House of Representatives.

Augmenting the pain of the imminent defeat was the fact that if the election had depended solely on the primary vote count, John would’ve succeeded Labor MP Anna Burke in a stunning and hard-fought victory… the difference in the primaries sitting at almost 3,000 votes.

Alas, the voting system isn’t thus.

And my axe isn’t the only one being ground against the preferential voting system this election. The seemingly imminent senatorial victories of minor party candidates such as the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party‘s Ricky Muir, the Palmer United Party‘s Glenn Lazarus in Queensland, and Jacqui Lambie in Tasmania, as well as a candidate for the Australian Sports Party in Western Australia, and a candidate for the Liberal Democratic Party in New South Wales begs the question, Does the preferential voting system really represent the popular democratic will?

The short answer is no.

The Australian Sports Party reportedly secured only 225 primary votes out of a possible 123,000 in Western Australia, yet look to be on track to secure a seat in Western Australia. In my eyes, this is a failure of the system.

But perhaps I’m just a sore loser.

Anyway, I digress. I’m so thankful to the team at John Nguyen’s Campaign HQ in Mt Waverley for being so accommodating these last few months. It’s been an educational and enriching experience, and one I won’t soon forget.

Categories: Quotes

Assange: The International Enigma

victorialandale

Posted on August 25, 2013

Thursday the 22nd of August marked my first personal encounter with the world’s most infamous enigma, Julian Assange – if you can call seeing him speak via video-link a ‘personal encounter’.

Image: The Melbourne Globalist

RMIT University and The Melbourne Globalist hosted a live, interactive video-link conference in RMIT’s Building 80 with the enigmatic political asylum seeker. Attendees had the opportunity to pre-submit questions to Left Right Think-Tank for consideration, and questions with enough merit were asked during the conference.

I chose to submit a question regarding the potential conflict of interest I thought may arise if Assange were elected to the senate.

Most would argue that some level of secrecy is necessary at a government level. WikiLeaks, however, strives for government transparency and accountability. If Assange is elected to the Senate, and, as he has attested in a recent Google+ hangout hosted by Fairfax, he intends to remain editor of WikiLeaks, is this not a conflict of interest? How does Assange propose to maintain the integrity of an organisation such as WikiLeaks, and fulfil his obligations as a Senator if elected?

Unfortunately my question wasn’t selected, and will thus remain unanswered for the time being. Sad face.

The successful pre-selected members of the audience probed the senate candidate on a range of issues, from video game censorship and classification frameworks, to the controversial resignation of WikiLeaks Party senate candidate Leslie Cannold last week, to Assange’s visit from pop icon Lady Gaga.

He answered in measured tones, and, dare I say, was quite pedestrian in his answers. Assange is commonly heralded as a digital whistle blowing revolutionary, so my expectations were admittedly high. What greeted me, however, was more rhetorical than revolutionary. These are just my opinions, however.

The most interesting outcome of the event was Assange’s announcement that, following Cannold’s resignation, Dr Binoy Kampmark – RMIT professor and, coincidentally, my International Human Rights & Law lecturer and tutor – would fill Assange’s place if he were elected to senate and unable to satisfy the requirements of the position.

To view the recording of Assange: The International Enigma, please click here.

For The Melbourne Globalist writer David Thornton’s write-up of the event, please click here.

Categories: Quotes

Intern, Intern, Intern: part III

victorialandale

Posted on June 14, 2013

Some more exciting news, folks. Following my post-budget week resolution, I’m currently in the process of exploring public relations as a potential area of interest. So, last week, I optimistically sent my CV to my local MP’s office, Kelly O’Dwyer, inquiring about internship opportunities for students. Being a realist, I was expecting to have to put more effort into the chase before I received a reply, and was gearing up for an incessant multi-platform tirade of unashamed self-promotion.

… Plot twist! Much to my (very pleasant) surprise, Ms O’Dwyer gave me a phone call on Monday afternoon to discuss internship opportunities with the Liberal Party. Having already committed to internships in her office for the current period of time, she promised to speak to the Liberal candidate in a neighbouring electorate – Chisholm – to see if she could organise something there for me, and expressed interest in potentially taking me on as an intern later in the year.

And so, this morning I found myself on the campaign trail with Chisholm’s John Nguyen, the Liberal candidate for that electorate. Nguyen is contesting the leadership of the electorate’s current representative, Anna Burke MP, who is also the Speaker for the House of Representatives.

I’ll be volunteering there twice a week, most likely until university resumes for second semester, and then I’ll see what my timetable permits.

I guess this really just goes to show that, for those that are willing to take them, the opportunities are out there!

Categories: Miscellaneous, Politics, Public Relations

Tagged: Internships, Politics

The Melbourne Globalist: Launch Party @TMGlobalist

victorialandale

Posted on June 1, 2013

On Friday night, hordes of eager young writers and prominent Australian figures alike ventured across to the University of Melbourne Law School’s Woodward Conference Centre, to witness the official launch of The Melbourne Globalist.

The Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser AC during his keynote speech.

The launch boasted a keynote speech by The Right Honourable Malcolm Fraser AC, former Australian prime minister (’75-’83). He remains an active political commentator, and all were honoured to have him attend the launch, listening intently to his address on the theme of “Instability: the new norm?”.

It’s safe to say that in exceptional cases, age doesn’t dull the senses – Mr Fraser delivered a speech that had people both gasping and laughing. He proved highly opinionated, and unafraid to speak his mind, as was duly noted by other audience members:

https://twitter.com/harrisjohnw/status/340410330201075712

Other prominent figures in attendance included US Consul-General Mary Warlick, the former Editor-in-Chief of The Age and current Editor of The Conversation, Andrew Jaspan, and CEO of OurSay Eyal Halamish.

The event was an promising indicator of things to come. I’m wholeheartedly looking forward to becoming an active participant in The Melbourne Globalist, and cannot wait to finish up these last assignments so I can begin writing!

[paragraph]

To view The Melbourne Globalist’s website, please click here.

To view my first article for The Melbourne Globalist, please click here.

To view the inagural issue of The Melbourne Globalist, please click here.

Categories: Journalism, Media, The Melbourne Globalist

The Press Gallery: Day Three

victorialandale

Posted on May 16, 2013

Clouds hang low over Parliament House the morning after the Budget.

This particular chilly wednesday began earlier than most. I was at the Senate doors at 6.30am, ready to drop my bags in the Nine office, and head down to the front lawn of Parliament House with Mark.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard was set to appear on that morning’s programs such as Sunrise, and the Today Show. Karl Stefanovic and Ross Greenwood gave a post-Budget preamble, before Gillard joined them to air her views on the Budget.

Karl Stefanovic interviewing Prime Minister Julia Gillard live on The Today Show.

In typical Labor party form, Gillard mirrored the sentiments of her Treasurer, Wayne Swan, never straying from party lines.

She later moved over to Sunrise, to do an interview with well-known media personality, Kochie.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard during an interview with Seven's Koshie.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard during an interview with Seven’s Kochie.

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey also graced Parliament House’s front lawns, following Gillard’s interviews.

At 9.00am, I walked back up to the Press Gallery in order to listen to Abbott’s interview with 2UE’s Paul Murray.

Abbott walked down the corridors of the Senate with the all the hubris of someone that knew he’s going to win, come September. Unfortunately I didn’t have time to listen to the interview, but I’m sure he reiterated what Hockey had said the previous night, meaning I wouldn’t have missed out on much!

After my Press Gallery-encounter with Abbott, I followed Lane Calcutt and Andrew, a Nine cameraman, down to the offices of Independent MP Tony Windsor, located on the lower level of the House of Representatives.

Windsor was largely sympathetic to Swan’s plight, illustrating him as a victim of dire economic circumstance, as well as of his own rhetoric. He seemed to have a understanding of the Treasurer’s complicated position, and was – for the most part – complimentary of the Treasurer and his character.

That package aired on Nine News on the 15th of May, 2013.

Independent MP Tony Windsor, during an interview with Nine’s Lane Calcutt, aired on the 15th of May, 2013.

After that, I was privileged enough to go to The National Press Club of Australia‘s post-Budget luncheon, held in the Committee Hall of Parliament House.

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan delivered the keynote speech, recycling and repeating all key points from all of his post-Budget addresses.

You can watch ABC24’s recording of Wayne Swan’s speech below:

Wayne Swan’s keynote address for The National Press Club of Australia on the 15th of May, 2013, at Parliament House in Canberra.

https://twitter.com/jetpack/status/334571318555049985

I’m extremely grateful towards Mark for allowing me to join in on activities such as a National Press Club of Australia luncheon. Thought it’d be a long time before I got to attend such a luncheon, with such an influential group of people! It was an exciting experience, and one I won’t soon forget!

Following the excitement of lunch, Mark and I raced around Parliament House trying to secure me a press pass, so that I could watch Question Time from the press area of the House of Representatives. Fortunately, we were able to get the forms signed and stamped just in time. I moseyed my way over to the House of Representatives, and took a corner front-row seat in order to watch the excitement.

Swan’s family were sitting directly opposite me, on the other side of the House of Representatives.

Highlights included Bob Katter’s theatrical ejection from the House, on account of his inability to sit down when his time had expired.

mem. for Kennedy Bob Katter asks a question during #qt then the mem. for New England Tony Windsor scored his effort pic.twitter.com/j6MoUV5pDD
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) May 15, 2013

Swan and Hockey also had a heated exchange, with Gillard and Abbott remaining uncharacteristically silent throughout.

Following Question Time, I headed back to the Press Gallery, before following Mark, Luke, and Andrew to the lower levels of Parliament House. Lane Calcutt had a scheduled interview with Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Penny Wong, set to air on Nine’s news bulletins later that night.

Categories: Journalism, Media, Politics

Tagged: AusPol, Australia, Journalism, Julia Gillard, Media, Politics, Wayne Swan

The Press Gallery: Day Two

victorialandale

Posted on May 15, 2013

Tuesday, May 14th, marked the announcement of the Gillard Government’s 2013 Federal Budget. For Treasurer Wayne Swan, it was a day of tension and apprehension, involving an anxious wait for the end of lock-up at 7.30pm – when the Budget would go public.

My day started at the crisp time of 7.30am, with door-stops at the House of Representatives with Mark. Many of the politicians wanted air-time for their opinions, and so lined up at the doors in order to glean some media attention from the waiting journalists and camera crews in that day’s bulletins.

I then followed Mark and the other journalists to the rear of Parliament House, behind the office of Prime Minister Gillard, for Swan’s first Budget Day press conference. The media frenzy when Swan arrived was fairly stunning to watch. Photographers were walking through ponds and standing on the garden walls in order to get a diverse array of shots of the Treasurer. Cameramen were filming from all angles. Generally, they all pool their footage so that they all have optimal overlays in news coverage: Seven, Nine and Sky are affiliated (Nine owns a third of Sky); Ten shares with ABC.

Swan stood at the podium and delivered a pre-Budget speech that earmarked it as the budget for the future, in the first of many similar speeches of the day.

People with disability have been denied the opportunity to live a life many of us take for granted.Tonight, we right this wrong #Budget

— Wayne Swan (@SwannyQLD) May 14, 2013

Immediately after this, Swan held an exclusive pic-fac [picture facility: a pseudo event designed to generate pictures for the news bulletins] in his personal office at 8.30am, which I was privileged enough to attend. Three cameramen were allowed in, and around four photographers. Treasurer Swan’s press secretary then allowed the media a sparse two minutes in which to accumulate all the necessary footage and photographs for that day’s Budget specials and news bulletins.

Personally, I thought this a bit ridiculous. I can understand setting a time limit, and only allowing a certain amount of media in, but two minutes seemed a bit quick!

The Treasurer’s Springsteen song of choice for this Budget’s office pic-fac was “We Take Care of Our Own”, in an apparent continuation of a joke from last year’s Federal Budget.

Following this, Treasurer Swan held another pic-fac in one of the courtyards that Parliament House boasts, this time accompanied by his wife, Kim, and three children. Unfortunately, I didn’t attend this one as I was watching Kerrie Yaxley do a live cross for Nine News’ 11am bulletin.

Later that day, around 3pm, Mark had arranged for me to join the Budget lock-up, which I was very fortunate to be able to attend. The lock-up prevents any network from leaking Budget initiatives before the Government permits them to. Journalists, producers, camera crews and other media personnel are able to go in to the lock-up at any time, but once they’re in, they can’t leave until 7.30pm. Phones were prohibited, but computers and editing suites were permitted. So, the journalists can enter from 12pm, but aren’t allowed to leave for seven and a half hours.

During this time, they comb through the Budget papers, picking out key initiatives and producing packages that will air in that night’s news bulletins, as well as those of days to come. The packages include previously known initiatives, funding allocations and spending cuts, strategically leaked by Government officials in order to soften the blow come Budget day, as well as new initiatives and previously unknown changes in funding allocation.

All the filming, production, editing, and compilation occurs in during the lock-up, so that the packages are rendered and ready to air on the country’s news bulletins as soon as lock-up ends.

On entry into the lock-up, each person is given a navy cloth Budget bag which holds all the Budget papers, as well as Treasurer Swan’s Budget Speech, delivered in Parliament later that afternoon, and a general overview of key initiatives and the Budget as a whole.

For my analysis of the 2013-14 Federal Budget, you’ll have to wait until it’s published at the launch of The Melbourne Globalist on the 31st of May. It will most likely be published online, and I will be sure to feature the link on my blog!

At 4.15pm, the Treasurer held a press conference, during which he spoke at length about the logic behind the initiatives of the Budget, as well as opening himself up for questioning by the media after his speech.

Of the 2013-14 Budget, Wayne Swan said:

“We haven’t approached [the Budget] from the direction of the opinion polls; we’ve approached it from the direction of what is right for the nation.

“This is the Budget we needed to have.”

Following the conclusion of Swan’s Budget presser, I ran into two of the diligent editors of RMIT Catalyst magazine, Andrei and Nathan, which was a nice surprise. Was a great relief to see some young, familiar faces!

The rest of lock-up was spent combing through the Budget papers, drawing upon any skeric of economic understanding I possessed in order to try and make sense of it all. Initially, it was like drawing water from a stone. I’m happy to say that I eventually understood most of it!

Once lock-up concluded, the over-excited patrons of the Press Gallery rushed back to their offices in order to make the final preparations before their packages went to air. For Nine News, Lane Calcutt did the main budget package, explaining the key initiatives, cuts, and increases outlined in the Budget. Jane Azzopardi did an insider piece on the lock-up, to give the public some insight into what happens during lock-up, and how the process works.

Veteran Nine journalist, Laurie Oakes, had scheduled interviews with Treasurer Swan and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey later that night. Swan visited the studio at 8.50pm for his interview, and Hockey was scheduled to begin at 9pm.

As soon as his interview with Laurie concluded, Swan left the studio too fast for me to ask for the picture I’d been so desperately wanting all day. Whether this was because he was weary or had other appointments, I’ll never know! Perhaps he just wanted to avoid a confrontation with Hockey, more likely.

Hockey also shifted to social media to share his views, posting condemning tweets about Swan’s Budget:

Govt says #Budget is about "jobs and growth", yet it delivers higher unemployment and lower growth.

— Joe Hockey (@JoeHockey) May 14, 2013

Thus concluded this very busy Tuesday.

Categories: Journalism, Media, Politics

Tagged: AusPol, Budget, Journalism, Politics

Posted on April 7, 2014

Posted on April 1, 2014

References

Posted on November 24, 2013

Posted on October 11, 2013

References

Posted on September 12, 2013

Posted on August 25, 2013

Posted on June 14, 2013

Posted on June 1, 2013

Posted on May 16, 2013

Posted on May 15, 2013