Melissa Coade’s Blog

I’ve been away for a while now. My apologies to readers who’ve been checking back with no news to read! This past month i’ve been busily working on a special project blog that is a more formal component of my journalism assessment.

Check it out here: Whisk & Pinstripe - South West Sydney.

Thank you for visiting and i promise you’ll be getting a good dose of news again soon.

Mel

The ABC’s Unleashed featured an opinion piece by Tony Abbott this Friday discussing the definitional bounds of “marriage” thereby suggesting gay couples (in Australia at least) cannot marry. Although not against gay people having solid relationships, Abott said

“I just don’t think these can be called “marriages” any more than a rose could be called a gardenia or vice versa notwithstanding that they’re both beautiful and sweet scented.”

Marriage can mean different things to different people but it can hardly be anything that anyone wants it to be. A relationship between two men or between two women may be every bit as admirable as one between a man and a woman but it isn’t the same, and it can’t be a marriage however fulfilling and loving it might be.

Let’s celebrate all strong relationships, whether they are between a man and a woman or between people of the same sex but let’s be careful about describing every lasting sexual bond as a “marriage”.

The Federal Shadow Minster for Health then went on to argue that those pushing for gay marriage, motivated by romantic notions, fostered an ignorance of associated and realistic ‘burdens’.

“Gay marriage” would mean court-imposed property settlements when partners split. It would mean reduced social security benefits for gay couples. Conscious of the way they have been discriminated against, gay people may not know all the respects in which people can be better off (financially at least) by not being married.

Opportunity for public feedback has been quickly seized in public forums, one person asking why Australia has not been able to follow Britain’s lead. Ironic too that our Parliament has taken careful measures to portray itself as a modern and representative democracy, using this argument to spear-head a festering rebulican campaign. Clearly this sticking issue demostrates we are not yet ready to take any token leap of independence (albeit pseudo). Especially when our candidates elect, even those openly homosexual, are prepared to deny every member of our diverse community equal rights.

Scientific tests have confirmed that recently discovered human remains are those of two slain royals. Alexei and Maria, children of Nicholas II the last Tsar of Russia and King of Poland, were executed by a Bolshevik firing squad in 1918. The remains of all the Romanov family with the exception of the two children were found in 1991.

As in a report by 7 News online,

“We received full confirmation that they (the remains) do belong to the Tsar’s children,” Eduard Rossel, governor of the Sverdlovsk region where the imperial family was killed, said in comments broadcast by Russia’s NTV television station.

“So we have found the whole family,” he said, adding the tests were conducted in a U.S. genetic science laboratory.

Following the collapse of Communist rule, remains believed to belong to the Tsar, his wife and three daughters were exhumed. They were reburied in 1998 in the imperial crypt of St Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg.

ABC Just In went on to add that when Russian pathologists first investigated newly discovered bone fragments last year they quickly expressed confidence that these were the two missing members of the slain Romanov family.

The bones were found near the first set, with bullets and a set of capsules thought to have contained sulphuric acid used to disfigure the bodies and hinder identification.

The teeth contained silver alloy fillings similar to those found in the remains of other family members.

Image as from France 24 International News

“Russia’s last tsar Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra Fedorovna (2ndR) pose for a 1915 photo with their children Prince Alexei and Princesses Olga, Tatyana, Maria and Anastasia. Forensic testing of bone fragments found in Russia’s Urals region last year have confirmed that they belonged to Alexei and Maria.”

*For more information see http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/remains0108.html

or http://www.nicholasandalexandra.com/

Australia has been granted unprecedented access to a wealth of oil, gas and biological resources this week in a decision made by the United Nations. Australia’s new claim to nine marine areas around the far edge of the continental shelf has raised questions about how bioprospecting will be managed in a highly sensitive and long disputed territory.

The ABC’s Anna Salleh has today reported that the expansion of seabed borders included the Kerguelen Plateau around Heard and McDonald Islands, which extends southwards into Antarctica.

“This is the first property rights allocation for the area south of 60° south and it will be contentious but it has been sanctioned by the United Nations,” says Antarctic law expert Dr Julia Jabour of Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre at the University of Tasmania.

…She says the Antarctic Treaty, which covers the area, forbids mining but makes no explicit mention of the exploitation of biological resources.

Jabour says public and private researchers are already involved in sampling organisms living in the extreme environments of Antarctica for useful genes and chemicals.

Are new laws needed?

Jabour says it would not be necessary to develop any special laws at this early stage of Antarctic bioprospecting.

Australia is a signatory to the Antarctic Treaty and as such is required to evaluate and control scientific and commercial activities that might have an environmental impact.

But she suggests Australia will need to develop its capacity to monitor and evaluate environmental impacts in the remote and poorly understood area.

…Experts agree that whichever way Australia deals with the environmental, commercial and knowledge-sharing aspects of bioprospecting in Antarctica, it will be diplomatically sensitive.

*For more information about the territorial agreement see this ABC article.

People have many different takes on the right and wrong way to interview these days. Naturally, there will always be competing ethics at stake. As to what values you prioritise over others will be a matter of personal taste.

Authors of IJ net warn budding journalists of the perils manipulative subjects pose. Accordingly they provide strategies for “counter-attack”.

Don’t be intimidated by hostile interviewees who go on the offensive by saying things like “That’s a stupid question,” or “You didn’t do your homework,” or “That’s none of your business.” Keep calm. Tell them about the sources you checked before the question was asked. Explain why the answer to the question is necessary.

In stark contrast to the wary, tactical approach IJ net recommends, veteran interviewer and director Thomas Clifford maintains that the interests and comfort of the subject should always be the journalist’s first consideration. He even goes so far as to affectionately dub interviewees as “heroes”.

The single biggest key to capturing an engaging and honest interview is creating a feeling of comfort and safety for the person being interviewed.

Your safest interview bet is to find a happy medium between these two positions. An engaged, witty interviewer can remain alert to manipulative signposts whilst still portraying a consistent, comfortable vibe. Trust is a reciprocal sentiment in every interview meaning that immediate mistrust for your subject will likely have adverse effects.

Observe the media link above.

During this interview Larry King quizzes Oprah’s endorsement of Senator Obama, probing her motivation and the breadth of her contribution to his campaign. Note early on in the interview that King asks ‘Do you think he’s going to win the nomination?’ Oprah, a professional interviewer herself, is careful in responding and replies ‘I’m not here to say whether he will win or not but you asked me if i believed he can, and i believe he can. I believe it is possible.’

This interview isn’t ground-breaking in that it only establishes what we already know - that Oprah backs Obama. She is clear to assert that she has ‘nothing but repsect’ for Hillary and clearly manipulates her answers so that they change the surface intention of King’s questions to better her position. IJ net’s comprehensive list of tricks to get around manipulative interviewees are relevant in this context.

Initially, you can be provocative without being confrontational. Tell interviewees what their critics say about them, but don’t give your own opinion. Remember that you’re there to collect information, not to fight anyone.

Note that King is assertive but non-threatening, in some way he uses his position as an older male to engage fondly and a little condescendingly with Oprah - it is enough but not too much to get the general vibe he is after, keeping the mode conversational but to the point.

Conducting your first interview as a journalist should be daunting - especially when the success of an assessment depends on its outcome! From methodological approach to basic etiquette several factors will affect the quality of information you are able to glean from your subjects.

In my first interview experience facilitating the flow of information was no obstacle. I enjoyed prompting conversation, trying to find that balance between leading direction and giving the interviewee enough time to feel as though they were saying everything they needed. The true underlying problem for most interview first-timers is that of purpose.

As Frost emphasises, direction does not simply comprise a strong sense of topic or thorough background research. Clarity in direction also means establishing early on an assertive, determined purpose:

The interview starts outside the door. You need to be clear about why you are there, what you are going to ask and what you want to know… as in all things preparation is the key to success.

So what’s stopping you? Get those synapses in gear and start with the first step in your interviewing journey!

After a luxury French yacht and its 30-strong crew were taken hostage by pirates off the coast of Somalia this month Prime Minister Francois Fillon is appealing to the UN for a global force against violent maritime crims. Five people are said to have been killed in the French-led rescue mission and the line set to be taken against an increasing piracy trend, France warns, will be just as hard-hitting.

The SMH, in an article released today, reported that

April 4, commandos seized six pirates in Somalia during a daring helicopter raid launched shortly after the bandits released the yacht’s crew. As soon as it was clear they were all safe, the elite unit, which specialises in hostage rescue and counterterrorism, went into action aboard helicopters to track down the pirates.

Crew from the three-masted yacht Le Ponant were taken by inflatable boats to the French navy frigate Jean Bart, anchored off the Somali coast in East Africa. The crew was made up of 22 French nationals and about 10 Ukrainians.

The ABC has been closely following political commentary coming from French representatives this past week, reporting yesterday

French Prime Minister Francois Fillon told a news conference during a two-day visit to Tokyo, “We will ask that under a United Nations mandate, an international force, in which France would naturally be ready to participate, could work to secure the waterways of this region as well in the Malacca Strait [between Malaysia and Indonesia].”

Jean-David Levitte, chief diplomatic adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy, said France planned to present new measures next week to fellow members of the United Nations Security Council to combat piracy.

Over the past 10 years, some 3,200 sailors had been kidnapped by pirates, 500 injured and 160 killed, Mr Levitte said.

“We cannot resign ourselves to a return to ancient times when international law was flouted on part of the ocean,” Mr Fillon said.

The pirates captured by the French forces are believed to be Somali fishermen. Officials said they planned to have them stand trial in France.

*Image taken from http://www.boingboing.net/images/pirates.jpg

* For some interesting opinion and general background re Somalian piracy visit Smokehound.com

The ever-dissenting Justice Michael Kirby, Australian High Court Judge, has fronted moral condemnation recently as the co-existence of his “Anglicanism, homosexuality and the law” have come under fire. Vicar Lane of the Bellevue Hill Anglican parish has branded the judge as a homosexual “sinner” warning that as a “messenger, watchman and steward of the Lord in the Anglican Church of Australia”, he faced God’s judgment.

The SMH reported on Thursday that

The rector of St Stephen’s Church in Bellevue Hill, the Reverend Richard Lane, denounced the judge for calling himself a Christian Anglican while living in an openly gay relationship…

and that…

To call himself a Christian Anglican was a “perversion of truth” and to continue to do so without changing his lifestyle would brand him, like Herod, a “coward, a liar, a deceiver” and a “lawless one”.

“I appeal to you to cast yourself on the mercy of Jesus … That is admit your sin, confess your wrongdoing and turn in humble repentance to the Lord Jesus, who alone can forgive you,” Mr Lane said.

The attack came in an exchange of letters between the priest and the judge which was cited during a forum organised by St James Institute on Tuesday night to encourage a “public conversation” about religious tolerance and homosexuality. Justice Kirby shared the stage with the Herald’s David Marr.

In an excellent opinion piece written by the Sydney Morning Herald’s Richard Ackland yesterday some rather apt comments were made:

You’ve got to understand the issue of “same sex attraction” in the context in which you read the text of the Bible. [Kirby] thought that, like the constitution, the bible is full of metaphors and that you have to be flexible in giving contemporary meaning to ancient passages.

Kirby has been a judge since 1975 and the law that decriminalised homosexuality was not passed in NSW until 1984. “So you were breaking the criminal law as a judge,” said Marr.

Kirby thought this was “a load of bunkum” because the laws were not being enforced and anyway those enforcing the law would need evidence.

Still, this did not stop the prosecution of a man as recently as 2005 who allegedly had touched another man’s penis before 1984. Kirby, like other gay men, could still technically be prosecuted today if plod got the evidence because the abolition of the crime did not apply retrospectively.

To clear up all uncertainty, what Vicar Lane and his ilk should be pushing for is a new law making it a crime to touch your own penis. Surely the Iemma Government would be receptive to that.

In light of speculation Kirby is up for nomination as Australia’s next Governor General some further interesting discussion about the “radical” social and political implications of a monarchy were addressed. For more detail refer to Ackland’s commentary.

*image taken from http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/gay.jpg

The Australian’s most colourful peice today: ‘MAX Mosley, one of the most powerful men in world sport, was under pressure to resign as boss of Formula One’s governing body last night after he was exposed enjoying a Nazi-style orgy with five prostitutes.’

Jewish groups condemned the behaviour of Mosley, 67, whose father, Sir Oswald, was the leader of the British Union of Fascists and a friend of Adolf Hitler.

Mr Mosley was caught on video by the News of the World with five women in an underground “torture chamber” in Chelsea, where he spent several hours allegedly indulging in sado-masochistic sex.

The Oxford-educated former barrister, who is president of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), reenacted a concentration camp scene in which he played the role of both guard and inmate.

Speaking in German and brandishing a leather whip, he beat the women after allowing himself to be subjected to a humiliating inspection for lice and an interrogation in chains.

Mr Mosley, a close confidant of Bernie Ecclestone, who holds the commercial rights to Formula One, paid £2,500 cash for the sex services, the Sunday newspaper claimed.

…Stephen Smith, director of the Holocaust Centre, said: “As Mr Mosley has condemned the racism in motor sport he should live up to the standards he sets. This is an insult to millions of victims, survivors and their families. He should apologise. He should resign from the sport.”

*For a more detailed coverage of the story see here.