Aussie/Kiwi media

MrCreosote

With the furore about the recent prank calls from Sydney, it's brought this to my mind. I don't want to talk about the specifics of the case but more the rubbish standards in all media this side of the world.

Radio- vacuous brainless unfunny shock-jocks, and 8-10 songs on loop
TV- unwatchable schlocky programmes with shouty ads every 2 minutes
Newspapers- populist agenda-driven nonsense, usually riddled with grammatical errors, and bulked out with property ads.

At least we have d'internet.

Along with top-loading washing machines, it's the only big disappointment with moving over here.

rightyabe

Yeah it's pretty shoddy alright! Espically when out of control parties make the news every week. And programmes like today tonight and current affair just dramatise everything. One time they went after a dodgy Concreter for ripping of people, he was at the time also working with the company I was working for and was a honest fella, he is now suing them for defamation I think. Turns out the granny that complained has a history of non payment to workmen and her grandson was on work placement with the TV company! Pure lazy journalism.

catbear

Can't hack the media here, was thinking about getting a TV but there's so much crap on i just not bothered. I can watch programmes on the websites. I keep meaning to download something to let me watch the BBC, any suggestions?

swimming in a sea

when I came out here I was told not to bother getting a TV unless it was accompanied by a FoxTel subscription.

I've noticed it seems to be about 10 companies that advertise, as its the same adds over and over again.

swimming in a sea

MrCreosote wrote: »

Along with top-loading washing machines, it's the only big disappointment with moving over here.

Oh ya I bought a front loading washing machine no problem, only to find it does not fit great into the tiny place they had left for washing machine.

MrCreosote

Maybe a TV licence isn't such a bad idea after all...

MrCreosote

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Oh ya I bought a front loading washing machine no problem, only to find it does not fit great into the tiny place they had left for washing machine.

At least your clothes are now clean...

Peregrinus

Oh, look, I couldn't believe that the world contained a newspaper worse than the Sunday Independent until I moved to Perth and found the West Australian.

As for television, I watch the ABC and the footy and that's pretty much it. Occasionally there are good things on the commercial channels, but when there are it's unbelievably frustrating to have them ripped to shreds to accommodate the level of inane advertising that these channels seem to require. I'll wait till it comes out on DVD, thanks.

jackbhoy

swimming in a sea wrote: »

when I came out here I was told not to bother getting a TV unless it was accompanied by a FoxTel subscription.

Yep, we got an IQ box so anything we watch on commercial TV (not that much really) is recorded and watched later so we can FF ads. It's also great for sports as they don't stick ads in every time there is a goal/try in the footy.

If it was a choice between standard commercial TV and no TV, I'd definitely go for the latter.

The Aussie

rightyabe wrote: »

Yeah it's pretty shoddy alright! Espically when out of control parties make the news every week. And programmes like today tonight and current affair just dramatise everything. One time they went after a dodgy Concreter for ripping of people, he was at the time also working with the company I was working for and was a honest fella, he is now suing them for defamation I think. Turns out the granny that complained has a history of non payment to workmen and her grandson was on work placement with the TV company! Pure lazy journalism.

I was on a current affair in late 1996 for a similar thing, this idiot had a deck put on his house after about more than a year of not paying and legal action, the bloke I was doing my apprenticeship for got us around there to take it back out, any who half way through it a cameraman, soundman and some blithering tool turn up getting in everyone face trying to provoke a reaction, the boss just explained everything had it all documented (he was expecting the police and not some failed journalist to turn up) and in the end it was a non story that made Mr Sullivan from Clayfield look like a complete w@nker who did not pay for work he had done and I got on TV for about 7 seconds

Pugins

jackbhoy wrote: »

Yep, we got an IQ box so anything we watch on commercial TV (not that much really) is recorded and watched later so we can FF ads.

We did this too, the only way to watch tv here.

I find the reporting to be very intrusive. I mean if you say there was a fatal accident we don't really need to see the bodies and blood stains.

Cooperspale

I watch the ABC and SBS for serious news, maybe Channel 9 for quick headlines and Ten late news for similar.
The sad thing is that a big proportion of Australians watch those current affair, today tonight rubbish.
On the commercial channels, Aussie news is about shock headlines and drama with the odd rescue a possum story. My formative years were RTE and BBC filled current affairs so huge shock to the system, which is why I still tend to read the Irish Times daily and if I have time I'll watch the odd Primetime and Vincent Browne online for discussion, arguments and the odd dose of Irish misery. I'm very thankful for the Internet.
Foxtel iQ is a godsend, how many hours of your life would you waste on ads here??

markymark21

I don't think I'll ever forget the 10 mins I spent watching 'Please marry my boy'

token101

Read the Telegraph last week as it was on a table at work. Some of the most sickening stuff I've ever seen in any newspaper. Constantly referring to migrants as 'boat people', and then some columnist stating, not even implying, that it's the soldiers ('our boys') who build the facilities on that Pacific detention centre that we should feel sorry for, not the actual detainees. Another columnist went on to describe how the incident on the bus with the French girl wasn't actually a racist incident and how people are very touchy these days. Revolting stuff. Is it any wonder stuff like that happens when this is the type of **** people read. They'd be better reading Mein Kampf, at least it's not disguised as a media outlet.

token101

catbear wrote: »

Can't hack the media here, was thinking about getting a TV but there's so much crap on i just not bothered. I can watch programmes on the websites. I keep meaning to download something to let me watch the BBC, any suggestions?

Use a UK proxy, you can find a load of them here. Even gives you the instructions how to install it. Once it's installed you can watch any UK stuff.

The Aussie

token101 wrote: »

referring to migrants illegal immigrants as 'boat people'.

Fixed...

Peregrinus

The Aussie wrote: »

Fixed...

It'ts not illegal to come to Australia without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum. The fact that so many people think it is highlights the deficiencies of the Australian media. How can a basic misconception about an issue of great public interest persist for so long?

The Aussie

The very term Boat People is flawed to start with because more Asylum Seekers fly to Australia and present themselves once there.

Peregrinus wrote: »

How can a basic misconception about an issue of great public interest persist for so long?

Because sensationalism sells world wide, from Fox News, Sky News, RT, France 24 to all the printed toilet paper, Twitter and Facebook are now just extensions of the same, why would they want to educate when it's easier to cause outrage, just look at the British Media likening a moronic phone call to treason in the first few days after it first got aired.

Solair

Looking at the ISPs websites, it seems the internet is VERY expensive and slow there, even compared to Ireland. Although to be fair, in Ireland in areas where you've got UPC at least it's blazingly fast and not that pricy.

The Aussie

Yes, my Vodefone fob here in Cork is so blistering lay fast, I can't even watch YouTube on it :rolleyes:

Solair

The Aussie wrote: »

Yes, my Vodefone fob here in Cork is so blistering lay fast, I can't even watch YouTube on it :rolleyes:

Well nobody's forcing you to use them

and you're referring to 3G 'broadband' there... that's not great anywhere. I've used it in quite a few countries and it's just not really suitable to be relied upon as 'real' broadband.

LTE will speed up mobile broadband in the new year, but it's never really a viable alternative to proper broadband other than for a bit of surfing and emailing and stuff. I certainly wouldn't be using it to watch streaming video on, if avoidable.

The nature of 3G/3.5G mobile technology means that you will get high ping times, erratic speeds and the network will subject you to low download caps as they've limited bandwidth over the air so really don't want people streaming video for long periods. That's nothing to do with Ireland, it's just the technology is meant for supporting things like tablets / mobile devices and people out and about, not to be a home broadband solution.

If you're in a major urban area, you can access UPC cable in most areas.
Most places other than houses out in the sticks / with unusually long lines have access to reasonably fast DSL and if you can't avail of those, I'd go with a fixed-point wireless service like Digiweb Metro or Nova Networks or whoever your local suppliers are. That's a little antenna on your roof linking you to a proper broadband network usually at quite reasonable speed with sensible ping times.

My UPC is >100mbit/s hehe

I was just a bit surprised at the prices I saw quoted and the usage caps in Australia on DSL and even Cable products.

The Aussie

Vodafone are that only network that has any decent coverage and certainly is not cheap for what you get, the others are worse again coverage wise.
UPC don't do outside cities, I've checked.

Solair

The Aussie wrote: »

Vodafone are that only network that has any decent coverage and certainly is not cheap for what you get, the others are worse again coverage wise.
UPC don't do outside cities, I've checked.

You might be better off posting in the Boards.ie Broadband Forum but, there are usually far better fixed-point wireless services if you cannot get cable or DSL.

I'm not sure where Paddyville, Co. Paddy is so.. you'd kinda need to ask for advise in that forum if you're in a rural area.

There are services like Digiweb Metro which uses a small antenna and you can get up to 30mbit/s very reliably with low pings & home phone line without eircom lines at all.

3G should really only be a last resort. I certainly wouldn't use it as my only access to the internet.

To get back on track, I was just surprised that broadband packages in Australia were quite pricy and slow compared to other major countries. I was just wondering what the reason is.

Also, a lot of the plans do not quote a speed at all which is really weird..!

token101

The Aussie wrote: »

The very term Boat People is flawed to start with because more Asylum Seekers fly to Australia and present themselves once there.

Is that really the only flaw you see with the term 'boat people'?

Merkin

catbear wrote: »

Can't hack the media here, was thinking about getting a TV but there's so much crap on i just not bothered. I can watch programmes on the websites. I keep meaning to download something to let me watch the BBC, any suggestions?

Expat Shield will give you a UK IP address, just do a search in Googles

The Aussie

token101 wrote: »

Is that really the only flaw you see with the term 'boat people'?

The whole system is flawed, how many are true asylum seekers and not economic refugees looking to better their lives, massive difference between the two but they are heaped in the same "boat" (pun intended).

Peregrinus

The Aussie wrote: »

The whole system is flawed, how many are true asylum seekers and not economic refugees looking to better their lives, massive difference between the two but they are heaped in the same "boat" (pun intended).

The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers who arrive in boats are eventually found to qualify for asylum. Economic migrants are more prone to arrive by air.

The Aussie

Are the any breakdown of statistics available?

mandrake04

Peregrinus wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers who arrive in boats are eventually found to qualify for asylum. Economic migrants are more prone to arrive by air.

Those who arrive by boat throw their documents/Passports overboard as its then more hard to prove they are not genuine, recently there have been more and more 'boat people' returned to Sri Lanka or where ever.

Once the government eventually moves people off bridging visa's to Temporary Protection Visa's then the carrot of PR has been removed you won't see any boats.

MrCreosote

The Australian treatment of asylum seekers is disgusting. Whatever about how they process the claims, there is a severe lack of humanity in the way they throw them out on desolate rock in the middle of the Pacific, or treat them as criminals simply for the "crime" of trying to better their lot.

Most of the "illegal immigrants" in Australia are British and Irish visa overstayers- yet you don't hear much bellyaching about them in the media. I wonder why?

Peregrinus

mandrake04 wrote: »

Those who arrive by boat throw their documents/Passports overboard as its then more hard to prove they are not genuine . . .

That would be just after they've thrown their children overboard, right? :rolleyes:

Xavi6

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oh, look, I couldn't believe that the world contained a newspaper worse than the Sunday Independent until I moved to Perth and found the West Australian.

Between ads on every second page and editorial copied and pasted from AAP, it's an absolute joke of a newspaper.

The dunny thing is, I know a few journalists working there who are excellent but aren't allowed sneeze without being pulled up on it by the editorial team. The suppression is terrible to the point where a good few are taking voluntary redundancy just to gtfo.

jackbhoy

Xavi6 wrote: »

Between ads on every second page and editorial copied and pasted from AAP, it's an absolute joke of a newspaper.

The dunny thing is, I know a few journalists working there who are excellent but aren't allowed sneeze without being pulled up on it by the editorial team. The suppression is terrible to the point where a good few are taking voluntary redundancy just to gtfo.

I have seen that quite a bit in Aus, where you can tell some journos are quite good writers and could be excellent but they have to toe the editorial line. But then most are just hacks who have no idea how to construct a coherent paragraph.

The editing and proof reading is also shocking at times, you often see
paragraph, or even sentences within paragraphs, which have been quite obviously removed or amended by editors (probably to reduce word count so it can fit in between surfing cat stories) without any thought to whether the new structure makes any sense.

Peregrinus

The Aussie wrote: »

Are the any breakdown of statistics available?

Lots of one-line quotes, but the authoritative sources of the data are not easy to trace - because, one suspects, it suits the government. The Department publishes a detailed and well-laid-out report on its offshore humanitarian programme each year, full of fascinating information, but there is no corresponding report for the onshore programme, which is the one that covers people who arrive by boat, and then seek asylum.

But the data can be traced, by those willing to do a bit of spadework. The annual reports of the Dept of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs do give some relevant figures, though you'll have to hunt for them, and if you want to compare year to year, or compile figures that aggregate several years, you'll have to do that yourself.

Here, for instance, is the 2008-09 report: http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2008-09/html/. It shows (in section 1.2.2) that 217 Refugee Status Assessments were completed for people who had arrived by boat on Christmas Island. Of these, 206 were sucessful and 11 were unsuccessful (and one of the "unsuccessful" determinations was reversed on appeal).

mandrake04

Peregrinus wrote: »

That would be just after they've thrown their children overboard, right? :rolleyes:

I don't think there have been any reports of children being thrown over board, just documents. :rolleyes:

Peregrinus

mandrake04 wrote: »

I don't think there have been any reports of children being thrown over board, just documents. :rolleyes:

You've completely forgotten the reports of children being thrown overboard in the "Children Overboard" Affair, then, have you?

mandrake04

Peregrinus wrote: »

You've completely forgotten the reports of children being thrown overboard in the "Children Overboard" Affair, then, have you?

Never even heard of it, only been living in Australia 7 years and by the looks of it that case was over 11 years ago.

So how did I forget?

Still doesn't mean that these people today 2012 don't throw their documents overboard.

Peregrinus

mandrake04 wrote: »

Never even heard of it, only been living in Australia 7 years and by the looks of it that case was over 11 years ago.

So how did I forget?

It;s pretty notorious, and still much talked about today. You don't have to take too much interest in refugee/asylum seeker matters to be aware of it. Like yourself, I didn't come to Australia until afterwards either - I arrived in 2003 - and I can honestly say that you're the first person I've ever come across who didn't instantly recognise a reference to "children overboard".

mandrake04 wrote: »

Still doesn't mean that these people today 2012 don't throw their documents overboard.

It should perhaps enourage you to treat such reports with scepticism, though.

What evidence do you have that people are throwing their documents overboard?

mandrake04

Peregrinus wrote: »

It;s pretty notorious, and still much talked about today. You don't have to take too much interest in refugee/asylum seeker matters to be aware of it. Like yourself, I didn't come to Australia until afterwards either - I arrived in 2003 - and I can honestly say that you're the first person I've ever come across who didn't instantly recognise a reference to "children overboard".

I do apologise for not being Mr. Current Affair, all that humanity rubbish is not my game. I have nothing against asylum seekers/boat people as they never did me any harm, but lets face it if the they decided to throw their kids overboard I wont lose much sleep over it... thats their choice and last time I checked it was a free world.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It should perhaps enourage you to treat such reports with scepticism, though.

What evidence do you have that people are throwing their documents overboard?

I read about it on the Parliament of Australia website, then again maybe you are right that I should be sceptical.

Peregrinus

mandrake04 wrote: »

I do apologise for not being Mr. Current Affair, all that humanity rubbish is not my game. I have nothing against asylum seekers/boat people as they never did me any harm, but lets face it if the they decided to throw their kids overboard I wont lose much sleep over it... thats their choice and last time I checked it was a free world.

'Nuff said!

Chiparus

I lived in Australia when the children overboard issue was raised.
One thing that truly shocked me was that the Australian Navy opened fire above the boat filled with civilians.
Most Australians had no problem with this.

The Aussie

Chiparus wrote: »

One thing that truly shocked me was that the Australian Navy opened fire above the boat filled with civilians.
Most Australians had no problem with this.

Most Navies around the world do it after repeated warnings, even the Irish Navy was threatening to fire across the bow of a Fishing Trawler a few years ago, so nothing to get shocked about.

I was not in the country at the time and never heard of it, sounds like a political football that turned square shaped.

Chiparus

They fired warning shots over a boat with women and children, the next step is to fire at the boat.
Yes the Irish navy fired at a fishing boat , and they sunk it.

They also directed a boat to save another boat load of refugees. Then when that ship tried to enter Australian waters they sent in the SAS and arrested the boat. ( MV TAMPA)

catbear

you'd think there'd be a solution to all these boat people by now, after all they've been coming for centuries at this stage!

The Aussie

Peregrinus wrote: »

Lots of one-line quotes, but the authoritative sources of the data are not easy to trace - because, one suspects, it suits the government. The Department publishes a detailed and well-laid-out report on its offshore humanitarian programme each year, full of fascinating information, but there is no corresponding report for the onshore programme, which is the one that covers people who arrive by boat, and then seek asylum.

But the data can be traced, by those willing to do a bit of spadework. The annual reports of the Dept of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs do give some relevant figures, though you'll have to hunt for them, and if you want to compare year to year, or compile figures that aggregate several years, you'll have to do that yourself.

Here, for instance, is the 2008-09 report: http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2008-09/html/. It shows (in section 1.2.2) that 217 Refugee Status Assessments were completed for people who had arrived by boat on Christmas Island. Of these, 206 were sucessful and 11 were unsuccessful (and one of the "unsuccessful" determinations was reversed on appeal).

Your not to far wrong about the facts and figures being buried amongst double speak and fogging and more "spade work" than can be done on a iPad is required, one thing that popped out was the years 2008-9 was also corresponding with the closing of the Nauru detention Centre (2008), Kevin Rudd being elected in December 2007 (the only Prime Minister who has tried to tackle the immigration issue with his Big Australia idea, before he realised to late that it was ultimately leading to his downfall and turned his back on it, C'est La Vie), and of course we can't forget Little Johnny CHoward, who would have had Minsters slowing up claims for Asylum in the lead up to the Federal Election to show he was being tough on "que jumpers", although that religious zealot Tony Abbott will be worse the Little Johnny ever was.

So back to the original question I posed, the answer is Who Knows. As i can't find any statistics relating to those who apply for Asylum arriving by Sea or Air.
Any who....

The Aussie

Chiparus wrote: »

They fired warning shots over a boat with women and children, the next step is to fire at the boat.

Why can't I get Helen Lovejoy's voice out of my head when I read that :rolleyes:
What about the poor Somali "Fisherman" who is only trying to feed his Clan when he gets fired upon by the Military arm of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize winners.
"won't somebody please think of the Somali Fishermans children"

Chiparus wrote: »

Yes the Irish navy fired at a fishing boat , and they sunk it.

According to you own Government they fired over 600 "warning shots" and the trawler in question sunk in bad weather, what evidence do you have that the Irish Navy sunk the trawler?

Peregrinus

Chiparus wrote: »

They fired warning shots over a boat with women and children, the next step is to fire at the boat.

Actually, they fired warning shots not over the boat, but across its bows. That's a long-established signal to heave to, used when a boat has ignored visual signals and audible directions (which this boat had).

The boat didn't heave to, and the next step was not in fact to fire at the boat, but to send a boarding party.

I'm not a fan of the Australian way of handling asylum-seekers who arrive by sea, as you may have gathered, but I don't have any criticisms to make of the way in which this vessel was arrested. (It's what happened after the arrest that bothers me.)

Chiparus

The Aussie wrote: »

According to you own Government they fired over 600 "warning shots" and the trawler in question sunk in bad weather, what evidence do you have that the Irish Navy sunk the trawler?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19841022&id=2boyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WegDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4897,3913716

catbear

The Slipper case seems to be a complete media circus, the amount of vitriol and hearsay that has passed as "news" only highlights how much the print media is struggling to retain its audience as it circles the sinkhole.

The only paper worth its fee is the Australian Financial Review, anything of real consequence will be covered and with good detail. I really like macrobusiness.com.au for keeping up with economic matters, especially for news related to mining.

The Aussie

Chiparus wrote: »

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19841022&id=2boyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WegDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4897,3913716

That's the way the media wrongly reported it at the time, but according to the owners of the Sonia when they were claiming the insurance for the sunken vessel it did not sink due to being fired on at all, but due to bad weather. If it had been sunk by the Irish Navy there would never have been a payout. The official line by the Irish Government is the same as the owners of the vessel and the Spanish Government has never made a compliant over the incident.

Mind you it's not lost on me how you linked a page to an Austrailan news paper on a thread bemoaning the quality of the Australian media. Epic LOL is Epic.

Chiparus

So the owners did not make a complaint as if they did they would not have been paid?


Must have changed their story for insurance purposes.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19841021&id=budVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VuEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5638,5237623

I think a lot of Australian media is quite good, especially ABC and SBS. The channel 7 and 9 is poor ,The newspapers are no worse than the Star, Sun ,Mirror or sunday independent. But thats what the punters want.