Just before I retire to read about the marvelous Teddy, I am very surprised at the low rating we received on Reporter’s Without Borders Press Freedom Index but I can’t seem to track down how the conclusion was made that we were 41st, below Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovakia, which I know has had many problems with civil rights.

So is our ranking harsh but fair? Or is there some form of bias against Australia? The How the Index was Compiled page says that the data was gathered by a questionnaire sent out to affiliated groups, as well as journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. Were they hostile to the current government perhaps? It is not a good sign that Iraq is listed as “United States of America (in Iraq)”. Perhaps Reporters Without Borders considers business interests as anti-press freedom, and our relatively free media economy could be to blame.

Freedom of press and speech is one of my little hot-buttons. I am very surprised by our ranking - I haven’t heard of any “crushing of dissent” (outside the typical blowhard complaints) in the papers. Is that because it is ruthlessly being suppressed by the fascist - I mean Liberal - government? I doubt it.

I sure would like to see some “recommended changes” or a copy of the questionnaire, or a copy of the responses. Some transparency, thanks folks.

I’ve added a random subtitle up the top, and also note the “new publications” at the top of each date header. It’s the little touches that make you keep coming back for more.

Its not like The Age is intentionally left-wing, but it only tries to be objective in the news section, and to give a vaguely equal time to both sides of politics on the opinion page. But the rest of the paper is filled with such casual passive bias it is often stunning.

A few months ago was a case in point - their contribution to the “what is a blog” genre of writing was maddening to say the least. Either the blog world is skewed to the right, or it is even. It certainly isn’t skewed to the left, but that doesn’t stop the Age’s accompanying picture from starring street crazies with torn shirts. Everybody knows the dress code.

So I come to this feature article by Suzy Freeman-Greene, “Time to Work it Out“, a virtual parroting of the anti-work arguments made by “happiness” researchers worldwide. She is this close - this close - to using the term “wage-slave”. Consider this quote

“In 2000, France took the bold step of legislating for a 35-hour week. The move reduced unemployment (and Parisian traffic chaos) and was well received by workers. But the conservative French Government, after authorising an increase in overtime, is now hinting it will scuttle this enlightened experiment in balancing work and family life.”

This is journalism, this is advocacy. The 35 hour week has been a dismal failure - and has not created any employment. France still has one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe. On in five working age people don’t have jobs. Even the French government has declared the initiative a financial “disaster“.

Freeman-Greene’s article seems blissfully unaware of this - even though almost every article written on the 35 hour week mentions its bad side. So either a) she is ignoring the evidence against her argument because she is dogmatic or ignorant or b) she doesn’t read anything but extreme left publications who do the same. The links cutout of the Age website for her article has a link to the International Socialist Organisation.

I have no problem with her expressing her opinion, nor with its publication in The Age. But from an journalistic ethics point of view, shouldn’t it be made clear, somehow, that she is a raging moonbat? The link to the Socialist group isn’t available on the paper edition, yet it seems to core to understanding her beliefs.

UPDATE a few seconds later: Googling for her name, I find this defense of Bowling for Columbine. In it she states that his book Dude Where’s My Country “mounts a coherent attack on the failings, misrepresentations and cronyism of the Bush Administration.” It may mount an blistering attack, but it certainly isn’t coherant. You could never call anything Moore writes or films “coherant.” Moore’s style is the rhetorical equivilent of a Basquiat painting. Roughly drawn caricatures scattered randomly around a canvas giving the vague hint of consistancy.

Equals

I should note that I really like Basquiat’s art, this is not intended as a slur on him. Go here (Mark Harden’s Artchive) for more examples, if you like what you see. And the movie about his life is very enjoyable too, if you can stand the sometimes pretentious style of Julian Schnabel.

This anecdote - and that’s all it really is - comes from Theodore Rex, the book I’m currently reading. (p135 onwards, if you care)

In Roosevelt’s first term, one of the most significant political issues was how to handle the enormous trusts, or combinations, that had grown up during the last half century. There was a very distinct divide between labour and the combinations. In 1902 there was a major strike by the mainly Slavic anthracite workers - led by the oddly conservative John Mitchell.

These strikes brought the issue of combinations and labour right onto the front page of the papers - and the Roosevelt administration was known to be investigating methods to break up the enormous corporations.

On the 8th of August, Attorney General Philander Knox went to a restaurant in Atlantic City with a small group of friends. Halfway through dinner, three business men (trust lords) drunkenly stumbled into the same restaurant, all millionaires. Charles Schoen, of the Pittsburgh Pressed Steel Company; Theodore Cramp, of Cramp & Sons (obviously); and Arthur Stephenson, or Stephenson Yarns. They purchased more wine, got progressively drunker, and progressively louder. Schoen was particularly aggressive.

After a short time, the head waiter brought to their table a message. “Attorney General Knox objects to your noise and vulgar language”. Knox’s firm, years ago, had been involved in a lawsuit to outs Schoen from his job.

“The hell he does,” yelled Schoen. “I’d like to know what right he has to interfere with us” and launching into a drunken, stumbling tirade against government anti-trust policy. Knox stood up and crisply said “I will not tolerate any more objectionable remarks.” Cramp and Stephenson made some more objectionable remarks, and taunted the Attorney General as he left the restaurant.

Knox, having left the restaurant, “had such a pressing invitation to go back that I couldn’t resist” (as he told reporters afterwards.) He ran back in the restaurant, and, waving his finger in Schoen’s face, yelled, “You are a Blackguard, sir!”

Schoen was so drunk that he couldn’t stand up, but yelled back “You are a cur!” Cramp and Stephenson weren’t as drunk, so they jump up and beat the Attorney General of the United States of America until he was rescued by waiters and bystanders. Knox then left the restaurant, bruised and missing several waistcoat buttons.

As part a concerted effort to remind myself that I’m not the only person on the internet, I’ve added two bloggers whom I know by reputation but have never met. Ari Sharp and Two Cents, a group blog with Alex Lew and Rohan D’Souza. Both have the depth of political analysis that I lack, probably because they know what they are talking about, and I’m just a really quick googler.

Anyway, I’ll bet they don’t have any pictures of Vladimir Putin and a goat, much to their shame.

UPDATE: Two Cents also features Miranda Airey-Branson, which I didn’t notice until I was told. Perhaps I am blind. Or lazy - she has a long name.

John Dvorak in PCMag:

“I used to think that everyone was entitled to his opinion, but no longer. Most opinions are worthless…

Almost everyone on the Net is anonymous. When you see someone on the street handing out a flyer, it is usually not hard to determine whether he or she is a lunatic. Not so with the haughty blogger who, by hiding behind a good online template, is actually taken seriously. A blogger who stays hidden long enough may even become famous. I know, not every blogger is a whack job— but that’s the point. How can you tell?”

And the guy who hands out leaflets on the side of the street, telling you that tax is the mark of satan, is he reliable because he isn’t anonymous?

Dvorak isn’t the first up against the wall, but he’s today’s catch. Link via Jeff Jarvis

A long-lost Ed Wood film has been recovered, Necromania.

“The 1971 movie is a porn film documenting the sexual enlightenment of a young couple at the hands of a coven of witches, the news service reported.”

How can you resist? (Link via Transterrestrial Musings)

If you ever need an indictment of Green Left Weekly, this should suffice. Read the international greetings for their 600th issue - including endorsements from the Central Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), as well as a lot of the word “comrade”.

Another major theme is that they don’t like capitalism. Keep that in mind.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, from 1841-1902, is online in its entirety, fully indexed and OCR’d. Each issue is even available in PDF, if you want it. The interface is very strong, too.

Kerry has a plan. Link via Tim Blair.