Winter in Europe.

In less than one month I'll be in France, experiencing European winter for the second year running.. in anticipation I've been looking at a lot of photo's of the places of where I'll be. 

Lyon - Home, or at least it was for 2011. 

Hallstatt in Austria

Rome!

Paris in the wintertime

The Newsroom..

This TV was recommended in one of journalism tutorials and also spoken about in a lecture. After the first ten minuted of the first episode, I was hooked. This show provides a behind the scene perspective of a fictional newsroom and includes all the things that make a TV show good... Drama, romance and quite simply, a good storyline. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is interested in journalism, loves a good drama or simple wishing to procrastinate during exam week.

Coq Au Vin.

I love to cook and after having spent a year in France attending a French cooking school which doubled as a French restaurant, I like to think that the things I make are good.. or in French standards at least editable. This is one of my favourite meals to cook.. a white wine coq au vin. 

Ingredients

• 2 tablespoons plain flour
• 1kg chicken thigh pieces, bone and skin intact
• 2 tablespoons olive oil
• 4 rashers rindless bacon, diced
• 300g cup mushrooms, sliced
• 8 eschallots, peeled, thinly sliced
• 2 garlic cloves, crushed
• 1 cup dry white wine
• 1 cup chicken stock
• 1 bay leaf
• 6 sprigs thyme

Method
Step 1:  Combine flour and salt and pepper in a snap-lock bag. Add chicken pieces and shake to coat.
Step 2: Heat oil in a large, heavy-based saucepan over medium-high heat. Add half the chicken. Cook for 2 minutes each side or until golden. Remove to a plate. Repeat with remaining chicken.
Step 3: Add bacon, mushrooms, eschallots, garlic and any remaining flour to pan. Cook, stirring often, for 5 minutes or until mushrooms are tender.
Step 4: Reduce heat to medium. Add wine, stock, bay leaf and thyme. Stir until well combined. Return chicken pieces to pan and turn to coat in sauce. Bring to the boil. Reduce heat to medium-low. Simmer, uncovered, for 15 minutes or until chicken is cooked through. Remove bay leaf. Season with salt and pepper. Serve.

Bill of Rights for Australia?

The most remarkable feature of the National Human Rights Consultation Report, released last month, is its projection of the voices of ‘ordinary people’ (a condescending phrase used by lawyers to describe people who are not lawyers). These voices are alternatively laconic, passionate, revelatory and querulous, all dialogue guaranteed verbatim, as heard by Father Frank Brennan’s caravan on its travels from Paraburdoo to Mintalie and thence to Yarrabah. They speak of hospitals that turn away patients, police stations that ignore reports of crime, and even a public toilet in Alice Springs that charges an entrance fee high enough to deter you-know-who.

The consultation committee’s brief, according to the attorney-general’s office, was to “conduct a nationwide consultation to examine the protection and promotion of human rights and responsibilities in Australia”. The report’s simple finding is that our wealthy and allegedly egalitarian society disrespects many classes of its citizens. Most serious is the plight of those who “fall between the cracks” – the homeless, the aged, the mentally impaired and physically disabled, children in care and indigenous Australians living in conditions of “third world disadvantage”. More surprisingly, the committee also found that the Great Dividing Range is more than a geographical barrier: there is a massive difference in basic health, education and welfare-service provision between those who live in cities and those who live in rural or remote areas. These indignities and iniquities would be ameliorated, the report’s authors reason convincingly, by the adoption of a federal bill of rights.

In other words, those who oppose a charter – including, most stridently, the editors of and many of the commentators in the Australian – are hostile to a measure which, on all the evidence, offers some chance of betterment for the poor and oppressed. The onus now falls on those commentators to demonstrate that their objections – political, for the most part, or lawyerphobic – are sufficiently weighty to outbalance the evident public good of improving the lot of our underdogs.

Brennan finds little substance in their objections. A ‘lawyer’s banquet’ a charter most certainly is not: most of the human-rights legal work would be done by community legal centre lawyers, who are paid less than cadet journalists. The argument that judges will be empowered to override parliament is convincingly refuted: the charter model endorsed by Brennan would merely enable judges, if the language of a statute is ambiguous, to assume that parliament intended the meaning most consonant with human rights. In dealing with controversial issues such as euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage and so on, parliament would remain supreme.

Reactions to the Brennan recommendations so far have been knee-jerk political. Many of its antagonists condemn the idea of a charter because they believe it is some kind of left-wing plot. For Liberals, this delusion may be an ideological hangover from John Howard’s day, but it is philosophically mistaken. A bill of rights is an impeccably conservative idea. The great right-wing thinkers – going back to Edmund Burke, William Blackstone and Albert Dicey – all cherished rights that limited the power of government and were entrenched in the common law (that is, the law that is made by judges). Winston Churchill, in his impassioned speech to the Hague Conference in 1948, urged the adoption of a bill of rights for every country in Europe, “guarded by freedom and sustained by law” and ensuring that “the people own the government, not the government the people”. It was Churchill who insisted on establishing the European Court of Human Rights, building upon a proposal first made at the 1946 Paris Peace Conference by a man then recognised as a great international statesman, one Doctor Evatt. Two top advisers to the current British conservative leader, David Cameron, recently published an article in the Guardian in praise of bills of rights under the headline “Churchill’s Legacy”. Someone should send a copy to the Queensland Liberal senator George Brandis, who recently warned on Radio National’s PMprogram that a charter would be “inimical to democratic values”.

Senator Brandis has come some distance in the course of the Brennan consultation: the Liberals are still opposed to Churchill’s legacy, but Brandis is all for human-rights education (which should be the government’s highest priority, in Brennan’s view) and now wants “a comprehensive audit of existing legislation, to identify and repair gaps in human rights protection under existing law”. What he does not appreciate is that existing legislation is a morass of technical and pettifogging verbiage; simply “auditing” (that is, reading) it will not reveal the human-rights problems it can cause in practice. Only a charter can do that; if a charter were in place, the courts would operate as true auditors, either by interpreting ambiguous legislation in conformity with human rights, or by declaring it incompatible with the rights guaranteed by the charter and referring the matter back to parliament. That is a real audit. How many more years in Opposition will it take for the Liberals to realise that it is a very good thing to have a check on government power?

Many years, if the New South Wales Liberals are anything to go by. In a state where government incompetence is exceeded only by government arrogance, the penny still has not dropped; the New South Wales Labor Party’s ferocious opposition to a Human Rights Act may not be unconnected to its fear of being called to account for the indignities in its hospitals, care homes and other public services. As for the National Party, it might have been expected to welcome the Brennan Report’s exposure of the discrepancies between city and country, and to do voters in remote areas a favour by declaring its support for a charter. Instead, its members shout ‘left-wing plot’, failing to recognise that a charter would serve the interests of their constituents.

The truth, of course, is that human rights are apolitical. A charter will disfavour whichever party is in government, because it will expose maladministration and offer some protection to minorities from unfair or oppressive treatment. Ideally it would be introduced with cross-party support, although that is evidently some years away (another term in Opposition may prompt a Liberal re-think). The education Brennan advocates may in time produce greater awareness of a charter’s benefits, and will in any event help to produce more engaged citizens. (Human-rights courses in Canadian and British schools have been credited with doing exactly that, while reducing bullying and encouraging better behaviour and greater respect for students from ethnic minorities and even for teachers.)

One deficiency of the report is its failure to concentrate on rights that have emerged through the Australian experience, rather than those handed down by international treaties. The problem is that the easiest way to introduce a federal charter is as an exercise of the federal parliament’s external affairs power – that is, as legislation implementing international treaties that Australia has already ratified. This is all very well, but such treaties tend to be of the ‘lowest common denominator’ variety, and would give the charter a foreign rather than Australian flavour. For this reason, many human-rights experts in England now want to replace the European Convention on Human Rights with a British bill of rights.

In the history of the struggle for human rights, Australia has some great stories to tell, beginning in 1787 when Captain Arthur Phillip devised what he termed the “First Law” for a penal colony that only he believed would ever amount to a nation. That law asserted that “there will be no slavery in a free land and hence no slaves”. This, many years before William Wilberforce achieved the abolition of slavery in Britain, was not a bad start. The subsequent emancipist battles for the right to vote and for trial by jury, and Chief Justice Forbes’ declarations striking down Governor Darling’s censorship of the press, are worth celebrating. As Eleanor Roosevelt recognised, Australia contributed more than any other nation to the development of the principles enshrined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We were the first to guarantee the minimum wage, the 40-hour week, paid holidays, long-service leave and even the fabled ‘smoko’, harbinger of the right to ‘down time’ at work. Doc Evatt and his delegates ensured that rights to health, education and welfare – the very rights most needed, according to Brennan, by those on margins of our modern society – were included in the Declaration, which calls upon all nations to protect human rights through domestic legislation. Tailoring such a domestic law to our own experiences, rather than anchoring it in the ether of UN conventions, is the best way forward.

Brennan’s most notable failure, at the end of a very long day (500 pages and many thousands of miles; this was a journey to rival that of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert) is the absence of any draft of his proposed bill of rights. Exhaustion, perhaps, accounts for this – his committee achieved a great deal in just nine months. But since the proof of the pudding is in the eating, we should at least see the dish before deciding whether to partake. The government would do well to reconvene the committee and lock them up with parliamentary draftspeople (plus Tom Keneally and Les Murray and some writers under 30) for another nine months, to see whether they can come up with prose inspiring enough, if need be, to carry a referendum.

This is no easy matter, as John Howard discovered when he made his stumblebum effort to insert “we value … independence as dearly as mateship” into the Australian Constitution (his draft preamble was understandably rejected at the 1999 referendum). It is said that Thomas Jefferson’s first draft of the Declaration of Independence began: “We hold these truths to be sacred and inviolable ...” When he read it to Ben Franklin, the latter shook his head: “Smacks of the pulpit, Mr Jefferson, smacks of the pulpit.” Franklin read on – all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, et cetera – and commented, “These truths are ... self-evident, are they not?” Jefferson had to agree, and the rest is history.

As for Australian history, the case for a bill of rights to uplift those who have fallen through the cracks is now self-evident in the pages of the Brennan Report. It will not convince notorious charter opponents, but at least it should put them on the defensive.

Geoffrey Robertson, The Monthly.

JOUR1111 Lecture 12 - Investigative Journalism.

“Isn’t all journalism meant to involve questioning investigation of facts and opinions presented to us?" Ross Coulthart, Australian Investigative Journalist.

What I believe Ross Coulthart is trying to say here is that is it's good journalism, it's investigative. Not all journalism is investigative however, often articles and reports are simply rehashed and put together without further or deeper investigation. However journalism which requires the investigation of a single topic of interest by a reporter and deeper analysis is considered to be investigative journalism and is therefore considered to be a primary source. 

The 'IN's of INvestigative Journalism...

-INTELLIGENT 

-INFORMED 

-INTUITIVE 

-INSIDE

-INVEST

Deeper definitions and purpose of investigative journalism... 

1. Critical and thorough journalism
CRITICAL = The journalist is an active  participant.

“ ACTIVE INTERVENTION” – the key idea THOROUGH = Journalist makes a substantial effort

i.e. Time Spent and Sources Consulted

2. Custodians of conscience

Investigation takes society’s morals and norms and holds breaches up to public scrutiny; in other words, what they call ‘civic vice’ is exposed for society to respond. 

“EXPOSURE” – the key idea.

3. To provide a voice for those without one and to hold the powerful to account

Social Justice – power to the powerless, voice to the voiceless.

“PUBLIC INTEREST” – the key idea.

4. Fourth Estate / Fourth Branch of Govt / Watchdog
Fourth Estate: Journalists represent the interests of those without power to balance the power of government.
Fourth branch of government: Journalists ensure free flows of information necessary for the
functioning of democracy by interrogating the judiciary, executive and legislature
"Watchdog”: Journalists make accountable public personalities and institutions whose functions impact social and political life

Key concepts

PRIMARY 

• ACTIVE INTERVENTION
• EXPOSURE
• ‘PUBLIC INTEREST’
• FOURTH ESTATE / WATCHDOG

SECONDARY 

• ‘Shoe leather’ (USA)
• Standing back (Big Pic.)
• Taking nothing for granted
• SCEPTICAL NOT CYNICAL!

The idea of investigative journalism is that of cutting through the agenda and agenda setting. Indeed as International Investigative Journalist John Pilger once augured "It is not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and myths that surround it." It is clear that newspapers have a function that goes beyond mere reporting and recording of facts, this function is that of probing behind the straight news and interpreting and explaining and sometimes even exposing facts, this function is investigative.

TYPES OF INVESTIGATION INTERACTION

• Interviews
• Observations
• Documents
• Briefings
• Leaks
• Trespass
• Theft

INVESTIGATION METHODS

• Interviewing: Numerous interviews with on-the-record sources as well as, in some instances, interviews with anonymous sources eg. whistleblowers
• Observing: Investigation of technical issues, scrutiny of government and business practices and their effects. Research into social and legal issues
• Analysing documents (law suits, legal docs, tax records, corporate financials, FOI (Freedom of Information) material)

However although Investigative Journalism is considered to be the most important style of journalism there exists several threats to it. Online News is perhaps the most dominant threat to investigative journalism. Less money results in less journalists which means less time and therefore less investigative journalism. Furthermore the shrinkage in journalism can be, in part, attributed to the growing public relations sector.  Public Relations is essentially propaganda by truth – the selective use of ‘facts’ to present a persuasive case to the public.Journalism: verifying the ‘facts’ in ‘the public interest’. 

PUBLIC RELATIONS                                             JOURNALISM

- Resistance to EXPOSURE                                       - No INTERVENTION
- Dodging QUESTIONS                                            - No SHOE LEATHER
- Massaging ‘talent’                                                     - Lack of DEPTH
- Cleaning up stories                                                    - Formulaic reporting

It is without a doubt that investigation and good journalism walk hand in hand. A good piece of investigative journalism should reveal the truth and provide a voice to those who cannot speak. Investigative journalism should expose the vices within society and give the opportunity to the public to make their own informed decisions and form opinions on subjects. However although Investigative Journalism is clearly an important form of journalism, the changes in technology and the increasing reliance on social networks means that the public are becoming more and more involved in creating their own journalism which then results in less money and time put towards employing professional journalists for investigating and digging deeper into a story. No where is this more clear than through the YouTube Investigate where the public are increasingly becoming involved and reporting on matters, though not necessarily investigating those matters. This alongside social network news and information means that the everyday citizen are now taking matters into their own hands and in the process destroying a lot of investigative journalism. But what does this mean for the future?? I believe that investigative journalism will always exist. No matter the increase in citizen journalism and the decrease in time and funds, in my opinion there will always remain the instinct to dig deeper, uncover the whole story, investigate, analyse and report that story.

So there we have it, the importance of investigative journalism to the world of news and journalism and the threats that it now faces. 

Summing it up.

The political persecution of Australia's Prime Minister, what does this mean for women in politics?

One of the best and shocking speeches I have ever read. Anne Summers gave her key note speech at the 2012 Human Rights and Social Justice Lecture at the University of Newcastle on the topic of Her Rights at Work. This speech focused on the political persecution of Australia’s first female prime minister. Like many other Australians, Anne Summers was disturbed by the double standards that are seemingly applied to Julia Gillard by the Opposition, by the media and by many ordinary people.

However in the course of researching this topic Summers discovered that Gillard is subjected to far worse than mere double-standards. There is an entire industry of vilification, much of it sexually crude, all of it offensive and designed to undermine her authority and thus her legitimacy in the role as Australia’s first female prime minister. Anne Summers felt that she could not argue this case without displaying at least some of the material that she was referring to. This material is very confronting and she warned that not everyone will want to look at it.

The link to the full article which reveals some shocking truths about the misogyny that exists within Australian Parliament is; http://annesummers.com.au/speeches/her-rights-at-work-r-rated/
Even if you don't agree with Gillard's politics, this speech is worth having a look at.