Shootings

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

David, my comments are in no way intended to impugn the reputation of Australian ex-servicemen. I'm only interested in history, and getting it right, without fear or favour. We've grown up with a lot of myths in this country and they need to be dismantled, because they don't do us justice.

....

On the subject of post war massacres (amongst white Australians) we also need to examine the history, as they fall into distinct categories, and statistically the threat posed to Australians by spree shootings appears to be a myth. I'm probably not saying anything new there, but as a non gun owner I've never given it much thought before.

Tony:

That was an instructive posting. Canadians had less overtly sanguine methods of separating the natives from their lands, but giving no less one-sided results. America's outright war with their first nations peoples has been well documented and romanticized.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

Canadians had less overtly sanguine methods of separating the natives from their lands, but giving no less one-sided results.

Yes I imagine your Treaties would have been rather one-sided Terry, although hopefully a little more than the usual "beads and blankets" deal! We only ever had one Treaty in Australia, when John Batman established Melbourne in 1835. Somewhat amusingly it was originally named Batmania! It was certainly cheap by today's prices:

"For 600,000 acres of Melbourne, including most of the land now within the suburban area, John Batman paid 40 pairs of blankets, 42 tomahawks, 130 knives, 62 pairs scissors, 40 looking glasses, 250 handkerchiefs, 18 shirts, 4 flannel jackets, 4 suits of clothes and 150 lb. of flour."

Evidently four of the tribal elders were kitted out in suits! Shortly afterwards however Batman's Treaty was voided by the Governor of NSW, which at that time included what is now the state of Victoria. No further treaties were negotiated in Australia, which was a big mistake for which we've paid a heavy price ever since. Countless billions have been spent in economic support for dispossessed populations, and the problem remains intractable today. If their reserves had been protected under Treaties we wouldn't have these problems, certainly not to the same extent. Contrary to popular belief they were well established in crop farming and grazing, largely with the assistance of Christian Missions. As such they were fully independent and contributing to the economy, and by late 19th century their produce was even winning first prize at International Exhibition. All that ended in the early 20th century when State governments resumed their reserves, much of it going to the 40,000 ex-servicemen after WWI under the Soldier Settlement scheme. Unfortunately most of those ventures failed, largely due to lack of farming experience. Lessons were learned however and the scheme was far more successful after WWII.

It's an interesting chapter in Australian history, because even as military history enthusiasts we tend to forget what happened to servicemen on their return. WWI was particularly brutal and many returned crippled and maimed, not to mention psychological damage. They arrived home to high unemployment followed by the Great Depression, with minimal government support. The Soldier Settlement scheme was intended partly to populate rural Australia, but also to address the problem of homelessness and street loitering. This stands in stark contrast to post WWII Australia, which enjoyed full employment from 1945 to 1975. There were jobs aplenty and we had to embark on a massive immigration program to supply labour. While Europe and Britain struggled under food rationing for years, here in Australia we enjoyed a "golden age" which saw massive population growth, with the post-war generation known as "baby boomers", and the rise of a huge and prosperous middle class which came to define Australia as the Lucky Country. These are the "good old days" we pine for in many ways, when a man could build a brand new house in the inner suburbs of capital cities, in which to support a wife and a tribe of kids on one wage! Not too many WWI diggers enjoyed that kind of prosperity, and of course it's impossible for young people in today's housing and job market. Some of this no doubt feeds into the generational gun crime rate David mentions, although there are many other factors as well.

[Marc Montgomery]

Rob- I wish it were so, but if you watched newsworld.."news now" as they ve relabelled it..it was incesstantly covered....criminal psychologists have long said media over exposure of these tragedies only serves to inspire other marginals.

Chris-the reason news covers local car accidents, robberies, and "weather terrors" (notice how we are to fear weather so much these days) is because it's easy--ie cheap-- the private stations think of profits only and its much cheaper to send a reporter to stand in front of a crime scene, and say "im here at a crime scene" or have them stand in front of petrol station and say prices are up..
(as if we hadnt noticed that already ourselves)...rather than assigning them for two or three or more days to dig into a story- Why are the Pan Am games so overbudget...why i mean really why are petrol prices at the same level now with crude at $100 as they were when it was $140...... the privates wont do it as it costs money, and it takes time....and time on air to explain complex issues.. never on local radio..and no interesting pix...... the CBC cant do it anymore as it costs money it no longer has and in the past 5 years over 2000 of 7000 employees are gone with 1500 more to go...it is shocking the destruction of the cbc...still looks like a mighty oak on the outside, but completely gutted inside.

What do you know of FIPA for example or TISA- two things that will seriously affect our lives--costs money and time to dig into complex issues and deliver them in layman's understandable terms....and virtually no media outlet can do it anymore,,so they still have to fill the air time or the news pages..so they opt for the cheap story, and especially with colourful or sensational visuals (none of that with FIPA or TISA or UPOV-91-all of which hands our sovereignty over to multinationals)

[rob love]

Marc: We could start a thread on the CBC...that is a subject into itself. Perhaps they should have learned not to bite the hand that controls their funding. The media can report politics, but they should net mess with politics.

I saw a lot less info on the shooter in this event than I have in others. We normally hear about their school life, their current life, their parents, their personalities, etc etc etc. This guy we heard very little about, and hopefully the bulk of the media continues to take the high road in this matter and does not sensationalize the person himself. It just makes a goal for the next nutball.

[Marc Montgomery]

re the shooter: perhaps there was less, which is very good, alas, News Now (newsworld) really does go overboard still...again probably because there are many fewer reporters to gather other news.

As for the hand that feeds them, reporting on govt failures and foibles, waste and excesses is exactly its function. If the CBC did not, then you would never know and people would absolutely guaranteed complain the CBC was not fulfilling it's function., but of course with cuts like this, reporting on the govt activities will become less and less and reporting on the "easy" crime stories and stuff like gas prices (telling us prices are up..but not the false excuse reasons) will become more common..and Cdns will be even less informed about real issues

[rob love]

There are more than a few examples of the CBC manipulating stories with an anti-conservative slant. One example that comes to mind was a cut and paste job they did, where they attributed a sentence Harper gave as part of a story when in fact it had nothing to do with it. Due to complaints form the public, they ended up having to give a one line apology on air a few days later during their news.

Then there was the occasion where a CBC journalist was writing the speeches for a Liberal politician. With things like that happening, how are we to expect fair and unbiased reporting from them.

Or how about their Christmas interview with Harper a few years ago, where their lighting man ended up giving Harper a shadow under his nose to make him look hitler-esque for most of the interview.

The CBC used to provide a service that Canadians needed back in the day in order to provide radio and television to remote areas, and to provide a Canadian identity. However, thanks to satellite, I believe just about anyone can have 300 channels these days. If they can make a go on their own, good for them. But if they are dependent on taxpayers dollars, then I think those days may soon be over. Aside from Dragon's den for me, and Coronation Street for the wife, I don't think they'll be missed in this household.

[Marc Montgomery]

But if they are dependent on taxpayers dollars...

Cdns should realize that the "private" networks are publicly subsidized to the tune of a billion dollars a year.

As for being anti- conservative, one must remember it was Chretien who initiated the largest single cut to CBC.
Whichever party is in power has always accused CBC of being "anti"...its because the CBC are doing their job holding govt feet to the fire.
Frankly for $0.55 a week, I get wonderful entertainment and information from cbc radio and tv..from a variety of shows.
Plus, at almost the lowest funding in the world, no other public broadcaster in the world faces the challenges CBC has to face
Meanwhile Sun Media, (which recieves public subsidies) owned by businessman and now (rabidly) separatist Parti Qeubecois politician PK Peladeau, has long mounted a campaign against CBC- Radio-Canada, Why? to eliminate what he sees as competition for his own media empire.

PS- sure one can recieve 300 channels, but virtually none will have Canadian stories.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by rob love

If they can make a go on their own, good for them. But if they are dependent on taxpayers dollars, then I think those days may soon be over.

Rob, the whole idea of public broadcasting is to be NON commercial. It's there to serve the public, not to return a profit. That's why it's OWNED by the public, so it can be FREE of vested commercial interests. How else can we get FREE and INDEPENDENT news and information? Without public broadcasters, the public has no voice. If we stop funding public broadcasters, we lose our voice and hand it to the likes of Murdoch. That's the end of democracy right there.

Wherever you sit on the political spectrum, you'll always find fault with public broadcasters, because it's their job to give EVERYONE a voice, particularly minorities who would otherwise have no voice whatsoever, let alone in their own language. Inevitably that puts them to the left of commercial media, whose job it is to appeal to the majority, because they're running a business.

Obviously I'm not familiar with CBC political coverage, but just like the ABC here they have to constantly strive for balanced reporting. As opposed to commercial media, which is free to represent the views of the owner, and do so vigorously, irrespective of public interest. Often when that happens we see the public broadcaster deliberately lean to the left, in an attempt to introduce some balance into public debate. Invariably they're accused of lefty influence, which is not actually the case when you look at the Board, although I agree they overstep the mark sometimes. Perhaps the Harper incidents you mention are examples of that. However, unlike commercial media, they're often seen to furiously backpedal in response to public criticism. At the end of the day they're accountable to the public, because that's who owns them.

I'm not familiar with Sun coverage either, but I agree wholeheartedly with Marc that Peladeau's entry into politics is an extremely sinister development, and you only have to look at Sarkozy to know that. You can't call it democracy when politicians control media. Nor is it democracy when media controls politicians, and there's no better example than Murdoch in the UK and Australia. He's decided nearly every election in my lifetime, and it's always about business, not politics. Over the decades he's thrown his papers behind Liberal, Labor, and Tory candidates, depending on who'll favour him more in office. He couldn't give a rats about the people or the country, he has no national allegiance whatsoever.

These media moguls have the power to subvert democracy in their own interests, and if they choose to exercise it, we as citizens have only one weapon against them, and that's public broadcasting. We don't have to watch it, but we sure as hell need it. As for the cost - a lot of people fought and died to preserve the democracy we enjoy today, so I figure the least we can do is fork out a few cents a week.