Media person of the year 2015: Clementine Ford

clem fordWoolly Day’s 2015 media person of the year is Australian writer Clementine Ford. Ford is an experienced columnist who has written about identity politics and feminist issues for many years at Fairfax, Murdoch and elsewhere. However this year she has gained wide attention for her uncompromising stance in publicly outing misogynist behaviour, bravery attracting praise and hatred in almost equal measure. The title of her forthcoming book Fight Like A Girl speaks to her battling qualities and an entry in her companion blog, describes why many men are so intimidated by Ford’s actions. “Women can’t go around pointing out sexism and RUINING SEXIST MEN’S LIVES with it,” she wrote.

Some makers of sexist remarks have lost their jobs after Ford called out their behaviour. Ford has also done a superb job calling out institutional sexism in the media, often to withering effect making many enemies. How she has dealt with them has made her an inspirational figure in the fight for women’s equality in public and private life.

Clementine Ford has long been a forthright media defender of women’s rights in Australia, never afraid to back it up with the honesty of her own experience. When almost 10 years ago, Tony Abbott pushed an anti-abortion pregnancy hotline as Health Minister in the Howard administration, Ford attracted condemnation and praise for her revelation that she had undergone two abortions without shame. Her only feeling was one of “intense relief”.

In 2013 Ford told her story to Mamamia as a “lifetime struggle to accept her body.” She said her body had endured 18 years of “punishing self-hatred.” Ford identified her struggle as dysmorphia. “Society drowns women in an ocean of narcissistic self-loathing, until eventually the only thing they can see is themselves and how incomplete they are, and they’re oblivious to the thousands of other bodies being sucked under the waves around them,” she said.

Ford’s solution was to articulate the problems her female body posed, in a way that was eloquent, honest, political, and fiercely critical of cant. As her media profile grew, so did the critics. In 2014, right-wing Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Blair included Ford alongside Marieke Hardy, Catherine Deveny, Vanessa Badham, Margo Kingston and others in his poll to find “Australia’s craziest left-wing frightbat”. “Frightbat” was Blair’s own invention and these were the women, he said, “whose psychosocial behavioural disorders are becoming ever more dramatic following Tony Abbott’s election.” Instead of being outraged Ford took the challenge head on, pleading with people to vote for her. In the end she attracted 5438 votes narrowly losing out the “frightbat” title to Badham by six votes.

Despite the humour, Ford, Badham and the others were all too aware of the institutional sexism that dominates Australia’s public life, especially in the media. Sydney shock jock Alan Jones spoke of how women were “destroying the joint” while Kerry-Anne Walsh’s book The Stalking of Julia Gillard was a forensic examination about the media’s merciless role in the downfall of Australia’s first female prime minister. Yet the “frightbat” and the “destroying the joint” campaigns also showed how feminists were using the language of their enemies to win their battles. Ford in particular fought hard against the practice of victim blaming, the archetype of the woman who invites rape by dressing too sexily.

In June 2015 Ford entered the limelight over a stand against a now deleted Channel Seven Facebook post. Seven were talking about an American revenge porn website which had posted illegally obtained naked photos of 400 South Australian women. However instead of attacking the website for its behaviour, Channel Seven blamed the women. “What’s it going to take for women to get the message about taking and sending nude photos?” they posted. A furious Ford saw this as making it the responsibility of women to stop others from exploiting them. She posted a nude photo of herself on her public Facebook profile. The photo showed text on her chest that read “Hey #Sunrise, get fucked”. Her reasons were twofold. “I wanted to oppose the message of victim blaming that forms so much of our social narratives about crimes against women’s bodies,” she said. “But secondly, I wanted to show solidarity to every woman who has been made to feel afraid or ashamed for engaging in a form of intimacy that should be bound by trust and respect but instead was marked by betrayal.”

The photo went viral. It was shared 45,000 times and liked by over 200,000 people. It also attracted thousands of comments, many supportive but many others rude and misogynistic. She shared screen grabs of some of the viler private messages she’d received which included requests for nude photos, explicit photographs of naked men, and many insults. Facebook banned Ford from accessing her account for 30 days because her messages violated their community standards. Ford launched a community protest and the ban was rescinded. “No one should be punished for speaking out against abuse, especially not the kind of cowardly abuse sent under the banner of ‘private correspondence’,” she said. “Private correspondence is a conversation mutually entered into by more than one party and defined by respect and sometimes discretion. It is not someone sending you unsolicited emails calling you a filthy whore.”

In August, Ford drew fire again from the Murdoch Empire. This time it was page one criticism in The Australian from Sherri Markson. Markson complained that a “foul” Ford freely used profanities in her Twitter stream but celebrated Mark Latham’s sacking as a Fairfax columnist over his misogynistic comments. Markson also noted Ford had attacked The Australian’s columnists Rita Panahi and Miranda Devine. Markson sought comment from Ford’s employers Fairfax, who declined to say if she had breached their social media policy. The coded message was News Ltd was watching what Ford was saying and if she does slip up she could lose her job. Mike Carlton (sacked by Fairfax after News called out offending comments he made on Twitter) said it was part of a News Corp campaign to shut down dissenting views and journalists should not have a responsibility to act with professional objectivity on Twitter.

If it was a warning to Ford, she ignored it. In November she launched a stinging attack on the hypocrisy of White Ribbon Day, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. While Ford applauded how the day brought better dialogue around the impacts of men’s violence, she said not enough people called out the links between violence and casual misogyny. Ford castigated the campaign as a way “of reassuring every man listening that this isn’t really about him and therefore he doesn’t really have to do anything about it.”

Once again her post attracted the ire and abuse of many men. As she did after the Sunrise affair, Ford shamed her sexual harassers by screenshotting messages of abuse, unsolicited dickpics and requests for nude photos, and then publishing them. When one abuser lost his job over it, the vitriol against Ford increased but so did her support. Fellow “frightbat” Badham said the man deserved it. “The belittling and bullying, threats and harassment, cyberstalking and outright hate speech directed to women on the internet every day is real-world behaviour with real-world consequence and it should oblige real-world punishments,” Badham said.

The chatter around Ford hit her US namesake, the actress Clementine Ford who had received some of the abuse intended for the Australian.  The American Ford reached across the Pacific in support. “I have the pleasure of sharing a name with a strong brave journalist who pissed of (sic) some mysognists,” she tweeted. When the Australian Ford apologised to her for being caught in the crossfire, the American told her not to be sorry. “Fuck them,” she responded, “I’m proud to be mistaken for you.”

By the end of the year Ford was a major figure in the world of feminism and not to be messed with easily. It was probably not the right time for independent left-wing publication New Matilda to get its hands dirty publishing a piece by a naive young man critical of Ford’s methods. Jack Kilbride defended Ford as “courageous” but said her strategy of outing sexist offenders may be doing more harm than good. When that post was attacked as risible, New Matilda editor Chris Graham (who has many runs on the board for attacking racism) openly admitted it was a test in the interest of seeing “how much abuse he (Kilbride) cops”.

Graham found out Ford’s supporters did not enjoy being trolled in the name of a subscriptions drive. Her support is massive because her readers respond to her unflinching honesty and bravery under massive provocation. For all of these reasons Ford is a deserving winner of my media person of the year. I have given this award since 2009 and Ford would not be impressed – though not surprised – to find she is my first female winner, which says more about my male-dominated media interests than the work of outstanding women in the field. Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya would have won in 2006, the year of her assassination, had I done it then. Of those who have won it, three were fighting the Murdoch Empire (two with the Guardian, and one a judge), two (Assange and Snowden) were fighting for freedom of information (and are still in legal limbo) and last year’s winners the Al Jazeera journalists Greste, Fahmy and Mohamed – all jailed on trumped up charges when doing their job – were the good news story of 2015 when Egypt finally released them without charges.

My first award in 2009 went to ABC managing director Mark Scott for his defence of strong public broadcasting and it is fitting that as he stands down this year, Michelle Guthrie becomes the first woman to head the organisation. Depending on how she tackles her job, she will be one of main candidates for my award next year. In the meantime, happy new year and congratulations to Clementine Ford.

Woolly Days media person of the year

2009: Mark Scott

2010: Julian Assange

2011: Alan Rusbridger and Nick Davies

2012: Brian Leveson

2013: Edward Snowden

2014: Peter Greste, Mohamed Fadel Fahmy and Baher Mohamed. 

2015: Clementine Ford

How stoner sloths may help legalise marijuana

stoner slothThe Australian state of New South Wales may have done the drug debate an unlikely favour through its hilariously bad new ads warning of the dangers of marijuana. NSW Health Department’s updated version of Reefer Madness is a campaign called Stoner Sloth designed to warn teenagers about the de-energising effect of the drug. But the anthropomorphic sloths used in the ads have attracted ridicule and concerns the cuddly looking mammal will actually have the opposite effect, attracting more people to use the drug.

NSW Health’s campaign was launched with the support of St Vincent de Paul’s Alcohol Drug Information Service. The premise is that “you are worse on weed”, based on research done by the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre. The idea has some intrinsic merit. Cannabis is a depressant drug, which means it slows down messages travelling between brain and body. However the health aspect of the ads are drowned by embarrassingly bad delivery.

Complete with its own hashtag, #stonersloth sets out to talk to the young about the effects of marijuana in language (and gifs) the department hoped the young would understand. Hit the books not the bong at exams, the campaign lectures (sound advice before exam time, though unlikely to be listened to AFTER the exam). It also warns about marijuana turning you into “that guy” at a party who is moody, listless and uninvolved (presumably unlike all the drunks who are the life of the party).

While slow reactions and a tendency to disengage can be symptoms of marijuana usage, the ads run into trouble transforming the stoner into an actual sloth, surrounded by human friends and family. Sloths are South American tree-dwelling mammals related to anteaters. Because they mostly eat nutrient-poor leaves, three-quarters of their body weight is devoted to their stomachs, so there is little energy to do much else. Their resulting lack of speed makes them ideal hosts for moths, beetles, cockroaches, fungi and other microbiotic creatures. Their low metabolic rates has made them extraordinary successful lifeforms in tropical rainforests. In short they are very little like the three young people named Deliha, Jason and Dave, the stoner sloths of the ads who can’t communicate with family and friends or concentrate on exams.

The campaign was designed to be shareable, especially among teenagers and it certainly made waves if not for the reasons the makers hoped. The hashtag #stonersloth became a hotbed of ridicule with people complaining about the stupidity of the ads, the cuddliness of sloths, and the apparent lack of consultation with young people.

Even NSW Premier Mike Baird appeared to distance himself from the campaign.He used his mastery of Twitter to riff about “Chewbacca siblings” and “no sloths being harmed in the making of the video”. Baird’s offhand humour is engaging but his comment that the video was “Quite something” is less than ringing endorsement of the message of his own health department and showed he didn’t see it before it was released.

The NCPIC whose message NSW Health relied on had not seen it either and are furious their message is attached to it. “NCPIC was not consulted on any of the creative elements of this campaign,” NCPIC director Professor Jan Copeland said. While some were worried about the silliness of the campaign Professor Copeland was more worried about the impression of the character of the sloth. “Associating a sloth with people being intoxicated may convey a positive appeal to people being intoxicated rather than the intended negative message,” she said.

The debate so far makes no mention of the elephant in the room: Cannabis remains an illegal drug to use, possess, grow or sell in Australia (despite moves towards legalising medical marijuana). The Northern Territory, the ACT and South Australia have “decriminalised” some marijuana offences, which means possession of small amounts becomes a revenue raiser for the state with minor fines applicable (arguably a tax on use, though unfairly distributed). In the other states, cannabis possession can lead to a criminal record (depending on the good will of prosecuting police) as well as larger fines, with repeat offenders still sentenced to jail.

In NSW, the home of #stonersloth, police can issue a “caution” to offenders caught with up to 15 grams of cannabis. There is a maximum of two cautions for each individual and police give out information about the harms associated with cannabis use and a number to call for drug-related information or referral.

These laws reflect a growing community belief marijuana usage is at worst a “victimless crime” and its widespread usage is causing unnecessary criminality. Studies show 34.8% of Australians 14 years and over have used cannabis at least once and 10.2% have used it in the last 12 months. Longer term effects of excessive use of cannabis can include memory loss, learning difficulties, mood swings and reduced sex drive. These are genuine health issues (the jury is still out on whether it causes schizophrenia) but hardly enough evidence to keep it illegal, especially when the damage done by legal drugs alcohol and tobacco is so well documented.

Stoner Sloth is a ill-designed schemozzle but its makers should be congratulated for at least putting marijuana back in the centre of public debate, however unwittingly. The road to legalisation is neither straight nor simple and requires new safeguards, taxing powers and managing community expectations. It is a complex debate our politicians don’t want to have, for fear of offending conservative media always keen to whip up outrage based on simplistic binaries of good and evil. No politician wants to be seen as soft in the “war on drugs” and the easy option is to support prohibition.

Yet support for legalisation in the wider community is growing. In Australia it rose from 26.8% in 2004 to 31.8% in 2014. The medical marijuana debate – legislation supported by Mike Baird among others – is casting a whole new light on the drug. As well as Stoner Sloth, NSW Health is also investing $9 million in clinical trials of marijuana use in pain relief. In the end it will Be Australia’s rapidly aging population and sufferers of cancer, Alzheimers, Parkinson’s Disease and more that will convince lawmakers to act. Stoner sloths are a stereotype, and just one tiny piece of a complex puzzle. It is up to the community to insist our leaders understand and solve that puzzle. Marijuana needs to come out of the shadows and be part of a wider health debate.

Islamism and the West: A new reign of terror

SYRIA-CONFLICT
A ripped picture of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad hangs in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa following the fall of the city to the Islamic State on March 5, 2013. Raqqa is now the capital city of IS. (Photo credit MOHAMMAD AL-HUSSEIN/AFP/Getty Images)

The sight of Brussels in continual “lockdown” is a sobering glimpse of the future. The tenuous contract between freedom and equality is on a slippery slope equality’s way and we are all becoming equally enslaved. The cause of the imbalance is Islamism, the largest threat to “western” (a word that has no geographical meaning as modern Chinese and Indian people aspire to be the “West” as much as Americans and Europeans) civilisation and dealing with it will become the thorniest global issue over the coming decades if not centuries. I don’t know why we are so surprised at this as 9/11 showed in horrific live global pictures the extent Islamists are prepared to go. It is war, where we like it or not, and whether we recognise or not who the “enemy” is.

It is also a problem that is not going away anytime soon, regardless of how well the West “copes” . While random easy target attacks with guns and bombs are not as as wicked an economic problem as the effects of climate change with its catastrophic results to the planet, the outcomes posited by Islamism are a more potent and direct threat to centuries of science and innovation. The notion that climate change is a fraud is easier to defeat as the weight of scientific evidence becomes insurmountable in the 21st century. But even supporting science or calling our times the heuristic “21st century” is inimical to Islamic terrorists.

Terror is an overworked word but is accurate to describe the sense of fear crucial to the work of terrorists. The notion is not exclusive to Islamists and is as old as human society. The power of ancient Rome was enforced by terrorism of its own people while the French Revolutionary Reign of Terror enshrined violence as a political right. State terrorism was a core tactic in both world wars, especially the second as en essential element of the Total War mentality leaders saw as necessary for victory.

In the late 20th century, terrorism became associated with non-state actors in asymmetric battles against the power of the state. Growing up in the political complexities of Ireland it was easy to see how one person’s freedom fighter was another person’s terrorist. But central to the strategy of all of these groups was that soft undefended targets were legitimate within the confines of their “wars”. In particular tourism and tourists became targets, both as a easy mark and also as symbols of the mass consumption that defined western society.

Islamists have taken this strategy to the next level in their battles against the West. The idea that tourism becomes unsafe and therefore untenable is a central concept in their war. You are a legitimate target whether you are in a hotel in Bamako, a beach in Tunisia, a rock concert in Paris, a pub in Bali or a plane over Sinai. The activities that mark out daily routines are slowly denormalised and with them, the assumptions that drive life in the West.

Terrorist actions are inescapably political, a fact the West prefers not to understand. Neither side in the traditional left-right divide of western politics understands how to deal with the problems posed by asymmetric warfare. The right is quicker to see Islamism’s threat but its simplistic solution of keeping Islam out and “closing the borders” belongs to less mobile times. The West is post-Christian and imposing a religious solution on secular societies has no chance of success. The borders are a hangover from the 19th project of nationalism and nationalism has few answers to global jihad.

The  other side practices its own stupidities. So determined is the liberal-left to prevent the effects of divide and conquer promoted by the right, it is blind to the causes of Islamism preferring not even to speak of the religious dimension that drives its actions. Their reluctance is understandable, not wanting to drive an artificial wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. But ignoring causation will never address the problem. The fact IS supporters practise their religion in a way that horrifies most liberals does not make it any less Islamic. When a British Muslim intellectual states it is lazy and wrong to say Islamism has nothing to do with Islam, she is castigated by non-Muslims as a Zionist in disguise. But as she argues, “the repugnant creed of the Islamic State is certainly related to Islam – but it is also inimical to Islam”.

It is not just Islamic State that is the problem, though they have succeeded in their avowed long-term media strategy. Jihadis view themselves as warriors against western imperialism and across the world Islamist groups invoke Allah to drive murderous projects. Boko Haram in Nigeria is even more bloodthirsty than IS, and the aim of their project is reflected in their name which means “western education is forbidden”.  It mounted 453 attacks in 2014, killing 6644 people – “the most deadly terrorist group in the world”.

There are others in similar guise across the Muslim world: Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb  (ALIQ) in northern Africa, Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula (AQIP) in Yemen, Al Shabaab in Somalia , Islamic State, Al Qaeda and their proxies in the Middle East, Taliban armies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Lashkar e Toiba in Pakistan and India, Jemaah Islamiya in Indonesia and Abu Sayyef in Philippines. They have a ready stream of adherents and are well-funded and well organised often by supposed “allies” of Western nations. The Salafist and Wahhabist strains of Islam, as practiced by some Gulf nations, Saudi Arabia in particular, are utterly intolerant and want only a world in their image. They can only be defeated by the populations in which they live.

There are no easy answers for the West. Media castigation of Muslims in their midst sells papers but is counter-productive. Military intervention is catastrophic and must be avoided. Even a peacekeeping mission has the potential to be badly misunderstood. Democracy has not taken root in Muslim countries and authoritarian regimes – backed by western nations for their own cynical purposes – have hollowed out civil societies. Jihadism with its easy illusion of divine sanction has filled the void, with a simplistic message often compelling to those disenfranchised in the west as it is to Muslims.

Islamic State must be allowed to be seen for what is it: A cruel, despotic and capricious regime that gives its elite a lucrative regime from smuggling oil, drugs and other contraband aroind their black economies. Those that live under IS and other intolerant Islamist regimes need time to find out the dictum that democracy is the worst possible way of organising the world – apart from all the others. Whether the people under Islamist flags ever get to see that, depends on the politics of the West: the right avoiding weapons and bigotry and the left not avoiding reason and rationality. We are a long way from both and the war goes on. IS and their ilk have much room to grow before they being destroyed by their own absurdities.

The Australian’s laughable war on Twitter

frayIt may be 2015 but Australia’s only national newspaper The Australian remains stuck in the 20th century, raging against the dying of the light. This weekend the ever-pompous broadsheet reached into its grab-bag of perceived enemies and pulled out the one marked “Twitter”. For hundreds of millions of users worldwide, Twitter is a great communications tool that companies, organisations and individuals use to market themselves and find out what is happening in their chosen field. For The Australian, it’s more personal. As its banner headline reads Twitter is “debasing quality journalism”.

No doubt the Oz has themselves in mind when they talk about “quality journalism” and there remains many talented journalists in their ranks. Unfortunately their work is skewed by editorial decisions tied to owner Rupert Murdoch’s increasingly unhinged world view. Was Murdoch debasing quality journalism with his tweetstorm last week, based on his observations after returning to Australia last month? Murdoch called the country “ungovernable” thanks to “extreme greenies”, “corrupt violent unions” and “deadly drugs”. The solution to this odious cocktail according to Murdoch? More of the same – another Abbott government.

The Australian is a faithful servant of His Master’s Voice ranting against environmentalism, unionism, drugs and more. It has long defended its position as the sacred arbiter of the news and its opinion pages are clogged with political analysts mostly to the right of Genghis Khan. The newspaper has been particularly dismissive of “pyjama-clad bloggers” and “under-employed academics” who dare venture into its chosen field with alternative views. Twitter, with its easy facility to talk back to power, has long been a target. But would @rupertmurdoch (now 1500 tweets old and counting, with 608,000 followers) appreciate a full page of this weekend’s Inquirer section devoted to exposing the evils of the 140-character communications mechanism?

The lead story on the page from reporter John Lyons (a talented journalist who seems reluctantly roped into this auto da fé) was about the Border Force debacle in Melbourne last week. The headline “The news, brought to you unedited” is dripping in irony at a company that sacked most of its sub-editors in 2013.

Yet the sub-headline continued to push the house message: “The idea of checking facts and verifying sources is alien to Twitter”.  It is a statement that makes as much sense as saying “the idea of checking facts and verifying sources is alien to paper”. Twitter is a tool used by hundreds of millions of people, with hundreds of millions different reasons. “Twitter” (even in the narrow News Ltd sense as “the people that use Twitter politically”) is made up mostly of individuals, not news organisations and they are not bound by the institutional, and increasingly fraught “rules of journalism”.

Despite calling it a Twitter war, Lyons initially plays a straight bat on the #borderfarce story acknowledging the effect Twitter has on the news cycle. But then it gets judgmental. There is a ritual attack on Fairfax before decrying the lack of filters in Twitter with people “re-tweeting” (his quotation marks, it’s obviously not a real word yet) information that often was wrong. That’s true, but no different to newspapers, and with far less influence. Traditional media says Lyons, “usually” (my quotation marks, it’s getting less and less usual) has several pairs of eyes looking at articles before publication.

The problem says Lyons is that (political) Twitter is skewed towards “the young and the left”, constituencies the Australian has well-nigh abandoned. Lyons quotes social media expert Axel Bruns who denies that simplistic skew saying Twitter was used by all sorts of constituencies for all sorts of reasons. That’s true. I was at an AgForce forum in Roma last week where farmers (hardly young and left) were encouraged to get their personal brand out on Twitter. Lyons attempts to be even handed but the headlines and fact-box “A Friday Afternoon Twitterstorm” push the house line that “Twitter” cannot be trusted.

This point is emphasised in the second story on the page, “When the Twitter tail wags the dog” by deputy editor Peter Fray. Once again, the frame is set by the sub-headline: “Some newsrooms are allowing social media to dictate what constitutes a news story”.  In this context “some newsrooms” is code for the enemies Fairfax and the ABC and Fray mentions them both in the context of the Australian Border Force story. Fray’s lament is not the stupidity or dangers of paramilitary government bodies but that Dutton’s jihadists (Fairfax and the ABC) prefer the “siren song” of social media over “sober tones of fact-checking, empirical evidence, objectivity and plain common sense.” The plea for common sense is a sure signal this is a right-wing rant and Fray does not explain why social media and journalistic practice has to be either/or and not both.

Fray (who tweets @peterfray) has three “truisms” to share about Twitter. It is fast not deep, it is dominated by “media types” and it is both a blessing and a curse for time-poor journalists. I would take issue with all three. To say it is not deep takes no account of hyperlinks; its supposed domination by media takes no account of celebrities or the millions of other non-media users; and it is only a curse to those that allow themselves to be ruled by it. Yes, there are unsubstantiated claims but lies are found out just as quickly. In a social media world where your reputation is everything, it doesn’t pay to muck around with the truth for too long.

But that seems completely lost on the writer of the hilariously awful third article on the page. Margaret Kelly (“who holds a degree in English literature and language”) was angry about lazy language, but inevitably social media comes in the firing line. In a confused rant that pours doubt on climate change and has Orwell disapproving of Facebook, Kelly laid into “groupthink” which “lives today in cyberspace where people want to be unknown”.  Kelly does not define groupthink but she says it leads to terrible things like Trending on Twitter. Kelly does define trending, which she says is “a lot of people saying the same sorts of things, mostly unconsidered… and trending is just what groupthink means.” Though her readers are none the wiser (not least at the ellipses which are in Kelly’s text) after this nonsense, it all leads to one definitive conclusion. “Frankly, in my view,” Kelly says, “only twits tweet.” Take that, all you 2.8 million Australian users of Twitter, you’ve been told. Though frankly, in my view, Ms Kelly ought to be careful about what she says about Rupert Murdoch in one of his papers.

The killing season must end: Why Labor should not change its leader

shorten gillardThe Killing Season on the ABC is brilliant television and should give producer Deb Masters and writer/presenter Sarah Ferguson a double in TV and journalism awards. The three-part series is deservedly taking plaudits for its riveting dissection of the Rudd-Gillard leadership wars. Though the period has been well examined in books, The Killing Season is rich multi-sensory art, from the wintry Poe-theme opening and the music of Schubert’s Piano Trio No 1, the theme of Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon, a flawed hero and adventurer.

The Killing Season offered extended interviews of its own flawed protagonists, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, two of the sharpest minds in Australian politics in the 21st century. Both had the right stuff to become Prime Minister but got in each other’s way. They were personal and political opposites, but made a smart marriage of convenience at the time, as Simon Crean observed. Rudd got the nod as leader, easier to sell as a male Protestant than a female atheist.

Rudd was a consummate actor and phenomenal media performer. He dominated their first election as a team and the defeat of four-time Prime Minister John Howard was put down to “Kevin 07”. The electorate respected Gillard but loved Rudd and his nerdy dad persona. His rock-star status was still rising after the 2008 Stolen Generations apology and his response to the Global Financial Crisis. But his stratospheric ratings could not last forever and quickly fell to earth after the Liberals appointed a hard-nosed leader to replace the hapless Malcolm Turnbull. Saving Australia from financial collapse was an astonishing achievement but too intangible to measure and Rudd’s leadership slowly collapsed amid a series of self-inflicted blows.

Rudd wasn’t the only one making mistakes. Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan made a fatal error to replace him in June 2010, though each step in the process was defensible. Rudd still had a winning lead when he was sacked in 2010, despite his problems. Rudd could not believe what was happening, his horror best expressed in The Killing Season in his shocked, almost whispered comment that trails off, “But the polls….?” His government had 52-48 lead over Abbott at the time, just like Shorten has now. But Labor panicked and he was gone. The people were not consulted and the coup would, as Anthony Albanese predicted, destroy two Labor leaders.

Much of the testimony of that 2010 period is of chaotic moments shared Rashomon-style with differing conclusions depending on the speaker. The Killing Season was, as one deft reviewer called it, classical tragedy “where at each stage all the tragic character can do is tighten the net”. Gillard replaced Rudd but couldn’t remove him. And for the next three years, he white-anted her relentlessly until his revenge was served stone-cold in 2013. Gillard and Rudd’s relationship was not the first poisoned by power and won’t be the last. Neither were “killed”, but they destroyed each other politically and are now both lost to parliament despite still being in their 50s and in their prime.

Worse still, their Labor Party too is now out of power, rudderless as well as ruddless, after looking semi-invincible from 2007 to 2009. Two leaders and two elections later the moral challenges of our generation are in the calamitous hands of Tony Abbott, the great divider. The Killing Season is important history to see how we got to that equation in six short years. The astonishing personal enmity tells us how Labor imploded and is compelling viewing. But a better guide to why it happened comes from the rich first-hand testimony of the large coterie of supporting characters swirming around Gillard and Rudd.

Sarah Ferguson is Australia’s sharpest political interviewer and her forensic approach extracted the drama from every statement and counter-statement. Most Labor ministers were rueful, occasionally bitter, but always honest, whether they supported Beasley, Rudd or Gillard. Minders like Lachlan Harris and Andrew Charlton were eye-opening in their perceptive day-to-day detail. Their admiration for Rudd’s judgement was shared by Gordon Brown, Hank Paulson and Ken Henry. Only three notables from the Labor first rank did not have their say with Sarah and two of them, Lindsay Tanner and John Faulkner, are retired. The third is current leader Bill Shorten.

Shorten’s minders no doubt believed there was nothing to gain from raking over old coals – particularly coals that Shorten himself stoked, with important roles in the 2010 and 2013 coups. This was a mistake, he should have explained what Labor had learned from the process (arguably nothing if today’s factional announcement from Tasmania is a guide). Shorten was implicated anyway despite his silence, caught out lying to Neil Mitchell about the 2013 challenge that brought Rudd back to power.

Shorten has apologised privately to the Melbourne radio host but should return to Mitchell’s show to talk about why he lied in the first place. It has undermined one of Shorten’s main advantages over Prime Minister Tony Abbott, after the latter was caught out lying spectacularly and repeatedly to the public the night before the election.

The Killing Series came out at a bad time for Shorten. Fairfax have gone on the attack over questions he may have to answer in a politically motivated union inquiry. Others on the left such as Jason Wilson decry Shorten as a do-little union apparatchik constantly moving to the right to avoid being wedged by Tony Abbott. Yet he leads in the polls, and a move to sack him would only suit Abbott, who is trying to get Labor to panic again. Abbott has no intention of going to an early election he wouldn’t win, but more Labor leadership turmoil would change that.

Abbott hailed The Killing Season as an unmasking of Labor’s untrustworthiness. “I don’t normally say thank you to the ABC,” Abbott admitted in parliament, “but I have to say Australia is indebted to you on this instance.” Abbott was spouting rubbish as usual, but he was right on one point – he doesn’t normally say thank you to the ABC. He’s normally lying about its future, stacking the board, slashing its budget and attacking its editorial policies.

Barely days after The Killing Season, he launched into open warfare over the Zaky Mallah exchange on Q&A on Monday. Not for the first time, Abbott used the sporting analogy of “whose side are you on?” when attacking the ABC. Abbott’s crude “team Australia” rhetoric is inadequate when trying to distil a complex argument like why people support Islamic State. It was a point Mallah demolished when he spoke about how young Australian Muslims become disenfranchised. The ABC took no “sides” but offered a platform for dissenting views, a platform urgently needed as the Murdoch press (which sets the media agenda and also has a vested interest in attacking the public broadcaster) becomes increasingly one-sided. The ABC is considered duplicitous despite the public judging twice as trustworthy as the government.

This is not just a problem for the ABC. It is a problem for Labor as an alternative government. Rupert Murdoch is a bulwark for Tony Abbott, his papers running constant interference and setting agendas by attacking Abbott’s enemies while giving him an easy ride. Mallah is considered the enemy but hysterical front page photos like the Courier-Mail’s conflation of the ABC and Islamic State are okay because the Courier-Mail is on “our side”. The effect is to move the Overton Window of acceptable political discourse further to the right.

The Killing Season is classic public broadcasting and a terrific first draft of history. Labor should learn from that history and allow Shorten what it didn’t allow Beasley in 2007, Rudd in 2010 and Gillard in 2013: a chance to survive the killing season and be judged by the voters. They might be shocked to find that behind the screeching of Abbott and Murdoch, there is another Australia out there, and one that does not like to be told what to think.

Woolly Days media personality of the year 2014: Peter Greste, Mohamed Fadel Fahmy and Basher Mohamed

GresteIt’s that time of the year when I name the Woolly Days media personality of the year. The “award” dates back to 2009 when I complimented ABC boss Mark Scott for taking his organisation into the 21st century and leading the fighting against Australian media Murdochocracy. 2010 was the year of Julian Assange, who despite cringe-worthy self-centredness, did as much as anyone to tell stories people didn’t want told (the definition of journalism). In 2011 I gave it to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger and journalist Nick Davies for shining a light on News Corp’s despicable practices in the UK, with the tacit approval of the police. Their full extent was revealed in Judge Brian Leveson’s inquiry in 2012 and he was my winner for that year. In 2013, Edward Snowden was a dominant winner for his spectacular expose for the intelligence practices and malpractices of the US and its allies.

There has been no standout this year but there is a deserving winner, or rather three deserving winners bucking a trend in news journalism. I recently saw the movie Nightcrawler, an excoriating treatment of evening news priorities. TV news journalism in the big American cities (and here in Australia) is all about ambulance chasing, the “if it bleeds, it leads” philosophy leading to news services overwhelmingly devoting time to petty local crime.

That criticism can’t be levelled at the three Al Jazeera employees who share the Woolly Days media personality of the year for 2014. Australian journalist Peter Greste, Egyptian-Canadian bureau chief Mohamed Fadel Fahmy and their Egyptian producer Baher Mohamed end the year as they started it in an Egyptian prison. The trio were reporting on the aftermath of the overthrow of Egypt’s elected government when arrested almost exactly a year ago. After a long and often farcical trial they were sentenced to multiple year prison terms for reporting news “damaging to national security.”

The sentences were widely condemned across the world though I queried their employer’s role in the matter. Al Jazeera’s owners, the emirs of Qatar, have dabbled dangerously in Middle East politics and bankrolled former Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi with Qatari LNG. When Morsi was overthrown Qatar gave sanctuary to several high-ranking members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt accused Al Jazeera of bias in their reporting.

The most well-known of the three in Australia, Peter Greste acknowledged the problem in his letters from prison. Greste wrote that despite its responsibility for Islamist violence, the Brotherhood remained the largest social and political force in Egypt. “What then for a journalist striving for ‘balance, fairness and accuracy?’” Greste asked. “How do you accurately and fairly report on Egypt’s ongoing political struggle without talking to everyone involved?” Greste and Fahmy decided they had to keep talking to everyone, regardless of the consequences. This is admirable and courageous, but didn’t acknowledge Al Jazeera’s role in Egyptian politics.

While Greste has been the focus of Australian efforts thanks to his media-savvy parents, Fahmy has been more prominent in Canada, where he attended university. Human rights lawyer Amal Clooney is among those calling for his release. Fahmy’s CV is impressive. He was a stringer in the 2003 Iraq War for the LA Times and wrote a book on his experiences called “Baghdad Bound”. When the Arab Spring broke out, he returned to his native Egypt and chronicled the uprising in a photo documentary he called “Egyptian Freedom Story”.

Baher Mohamed is a graduate of Cairo University. He worked for Japan’s Asahi Shimbun newspaper for five years, and freelanced for CNN and Iran’s English-language Press TV before joining Al Jazeera in 2013. In his trial, the prosecution said his father was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and had tried to make him go to religious classes organised by the Islamist movement. But Mohamed refused to attend because they were “boring”.  Mohamed got the seven years sentence of the other two but also an additional three years for having a weapon.

Their year in prison has been filled with false hope of an early release, most recently in November when Greste’s parents spoke of a possible pardon from Egypt’s president. Their best bet is a thaw in relations between Egypt and Qatar with the visit of a top Qatari envoy to Cairo. Egypt said it looked “forward to a new era that ends past disagreements” but made no mention of the Al Jazeera trio.

The Committee to Protect Journalists say they are among at least 12 journalists behind bars in Egypt. Four have been convicted including Greste, Fahmy and Mohamed. The other is Abdel Rahman Shaheen, a correspondent for Freedom and Justice News Gate. Shaheen was sentenced by a Suez court in June to three years jail on charges of inciting and committing violence during protests in April.

Many are saying Egypt has declared journalism a crime. The CPJ has released a documentary called Under Threat as the government cracks down on the press, forcing independent and critical voices into silence, exile, or prison. The film documents the dangers of working for Egyptian media, impunity in the killings of reporters, and the ongoing imprisonments of journalists. For braving those dangers, Peter Greste, Mohamed Fahmy and Baher Mohamed are my media personalities of 2014. Here’s hoping for a swift release for them and fellow journalists in 2015.

The news of the otherworld: Wrecking the RET

A sure sign the Warburton Review into the Renewable Energy Target was flawed was the lavish praise in yesterday’s editorial in the Weekend Australian. It was the second of two editorials with the main one bemoaning the lack of decision making in the “national interest” which is Weekend Oz’s code for “Murdoch’s interest”. Murdoch’s interest applauds the Abbott Government for its foreign affairs stance, fiscal consolidation and market-based reforms but castigates it for the way it sells its economic messages, as well as taxing high earners, introducing a “gimicky” medical research fund and bringing back knights and dames. Rupert Murdoch remains doggedly republican.

His pride and joy The Australian is now 50 years old – a month younger than me – and we are both showing our age. I’m still in control of my faculties but I’m not so sure about the Oz / Woz. This sorry excuse for a broadsheet is becoming more unhinged, especially on climate science. The page 5 exclusive yesterday from “environment editor” Graham Lloyd talks about “Records detail heat that ‘didn’t happen”, a giveaway it is climate change Oz headline writers think “didn’t happen”. The story is muddled junk which took forever to get to its dubious point the BOM are fudging figures to over-egg increasing temperatures. Lloyd’s sole “proof” is old weather records from Bourke in northern NSW. There is also a dubious graph which show local temperatures heading downwards over 150 years. The graph ignores its own spikes in the last 20 years. The lede is buried in the last sentence from a man who rescued the old records: “At the moment they (BOM) are saying we have a warming climate but if the old figures are used we have a cooling climate”.

Lloyd didn’t interview anyone who might gainsay that remark. His only expert is another sceptic “Queensland researcher” Jennifer Marohasy who agreed temperatures were warmer earlier in the century. Lloyd doesn’t mention Marohasy’s views are not widely shared. Lloyd has form with kooky climate theories and his employers always push them prominently. Dissenters to climate science interpretation like Marohasy and Bjorn Lomborg get a good run in the op eds. Though many organisations reacted negatively to the results of the RET review, they were absent from the Weekend Oz news pages. There was not a single article on RET nor any op eds, leaving only His Master’s Voice in the editorial.

The editorial began by attacking favourite enemy Christine Milne for petulance in throwing the review in the bin before calling it a “balanced, rational assessment”. Most of what followed was a direct copy and paste from the review. As Lenore Taylor said, the RET did exactly what it was designed to do: it pushed investment from fossil fuels into renewables.

The Woz said it was too expensive and heavy subsidies were ultimately lowering productivity and national income. The key statement in the review picked up by Peter Martin was the RET was helping the “transfer of wealth among participants in the electricity market”. This line is pure Dick Warburton, who led the four-person review and a man of commerce who prefers the hands of the market to move invisibly.

Warburton was the perfect choice to lead the review to a particular outcome, a successful businessman who doesn’t think climate change is caused by humans. When appointed review chair in February, Warburton told the Australian’s Sid Maher he was not a climate sceptic. The Australian did not ask Warburton if he believes climate change is real and if so, what is causing it and what we should do about it. As Taylor said, the result of the review only made sense if the intention was to deny the problem it was trying to solve.

The Australian quotes the review’s statement the RET created jobs at the expense of other industries. It claimed removing “inefficient subsidies” would free up investment for research into more efficient renewable energy sources. But with no carbon tax or any other market mechanism to support it, it would just as likely lead to more investment in fossil fuels. The RET exceeded its 20% target, generated a large surplus of electricity and lowered prices.

The scheme would cost $22b to its end point in 2030 (less than $1.5b a year or about 15 super hornet planes) which is a small tax price to pay for a good outcome. But the review didn’t see it that way. It was “distorting investment decisions” (again, doing what it was designed to do), the low prices were “artificial” while the cost of the scheme meant added 4% to those prices, though that figure was trending to negligible. The Warburton Review said it was not generating any new wealth just transferring it to other players in the market. As Martin picked up, the big losers are the mining companies who backed Abbott’s axing of both taxes (carbon and mining).

The RET helps reduce carbon emissions by an additional 300 million tonnes to 2030, the equivalent of 100,000 cars taken off the road. But cars aren’t coming off the road, they are increasing as is the impatience of those who rely on them, paying an increased price in transport and electricity. Warburton said abatement cost was too high but that cannot be proven. The Government’s hollow sounding “direct” action has no modelling or explanation how it might achieve its (low) targets. It is also unlikely to pass an increasingly feisty Senate that Abbott has managed to alienate, despite it containing many philosophical fellow travellers.

Abbott was able to “axe the (carbon) tax” but not do much else other than clear the cupboard. He dismantled the Climate and Science ministries, gutted CSIRO and abandoned the Climate Commission. Removing the hated RET is the next step in the ideological agenda that undersells the problem of climate change and leaves Australia behind in solar, wind and geothermal research. Murdoch’s rags are only too willing to help to put the boot in. The Government continues its brutal search and destroy mission of all legislation enacted between 2008 and 2013. If this is evidence of the “adults in charge” then for god’s sake bring back the children.