19 September 2014

National security theatre

Once again, the Australian media has been completely bluffed by national security theatre.

What the Prime Minister and the various police chiefs - even George Brandis - have said may be proven. They haven't been proven yet and their words are worth nothing. Nothing. All this would have much more credibility coming from a judge after fair and extensive trials, even with the law's palaver.

No government is entitled to be taken at its word, especially this one. A policeman's finding is the start of a trial, not the end.

In reporting the arrests and related events of the past 48 hours or so, the traditional media had no right to drop the 'allegedly' and other qualifiers, to be excused for failing in its duty to be sceptical at the show put on for their benefit: the staged photo ops, the idea that any question would be fobbed off with 'sub judice' or 'operational matters', the absence of any inkling that the story might be elsewhere than where the media wranglers indicated.

Remember how the Murdoch press' investigative skill cruelled last year's Boston Marathon bombing, as @FearsumEngine noted. Remember the shameful treatment of Dr Haneef, and the great lie linking asylum-seekers to terrorism on the Tampa which our politics and media is yet to call out. Remember how credulous the media were on all those occasions - and how they have learned nothing, cowering and passing on unqualified the lines fed to them.

When you see transcriptions from staged events, you are not looking at a triumph of journalism, but a failure of it. Any event that resists investigative journalism is not worth covering. Being forewarned of photo ops is no proof of journalistic competence or savvy.

These are the occasions that ratchet downwards trust in traditional media. No amount of browbeating or sneering by journalists (or wannabes) will recover the respect they are busy shedding.

The national security agencies are ramping up security in the lead-up to the G20 conferences, particularly the leaders' meeting in Brisbane in November; and rightly so. Experience from previous incidents suggests that it is this far out that perpetrators start to finalise their plans. None of this was explained to, or by, supposedly experienced journalists. None of this appears to have been even a factor in recent raids. Instead, they talked of how police actions (which necessarily involve suppressing debate) might work for a government that has demonstrably failed at everything else, including economic confidence.

This fool would reward a politician who has spent seven years beating up non-threats. The journalist would give the politician yet more powers that he is demonstrably unable to execute effectively (even by his own standards - how many of those arrested arrived by boat? Well?). This shows why insiderdom is not worth journalists having, not worth people heeding, and why the story is not where the grizzled veterans (duped again by spinners) insist it is.

We are going into debt, financial and moral, for all this. Our public policy mechanisms appear exhausted of alternatives (and if this were not the case, the traditional media lacks the skill and wit to detect it). There is no small-o opposition offered by the official Opposition, only the most timid echo. It would be pathetic were there not so much more at stake than 'w(h)ither Labor?' witterings. Should this whole operation turn out to be the sort of sham for which I gave precedents above, they give no sign that they might anticipate or even learn anything from it.

29 comments:

  1. Well said Andrew.
    I heard George Brandis being interviewed by Fran Kelly this morning and I was dismayed that the country's chief law officer referred to the raids as having averted a terrorist attack of some nature.

    That may well be the case but at this early stage it is not the Attorney-General's position to use his words so carelessly or perhaps, more disturbingly, deliberately for political purposes.

    Some days I feel as if I have spiraled down a rabbit hole into a world where everything is topsy turvy.

    I feel buffeted too by concerns that the new security laws have a loophole which would allow torture. Torture? What is going on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that's what is so distressing - can't even spell 'presumption of innocence'.

      Delete
  2. Terrorism, the perfect enemy, it will never go away, the more shrill the media, the better the politicians like it. For the security industry, its a case of forever ongoing big $$$ to be made - no questions asked. If it all wears a little thin; find another cause to be afraid of, keep the sheeples frightened. For the MSM it all boils down to selling more product; truth, credibility, judicial process and fairness has nothing to do with it. Sell more product that's the name of the game.

    Who was it, that said nothing to fear but fear itself?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Given the rate that the arrested people seem to be getting released (before they have even stopped talking about the arrest), this looks to be the usual beat up on cue for stakeholders to justify all manner of bastardry. Those that have been charged seem to have committed 'offenses' on a par with phoning up 2GB and threatening to kill the prime minister (or even hosting a show and doing that). It advances agendas at the cost of people's lives and reputations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you would think that urging tens of thousands of listeners to take the Prime Minister in a chaff bag and dump her in the seas would be a threat or the urging of others to do so.

      Delete
  4. I smelt a rat when I saw the footage. Why did they have the media following the raids? Nothing to do with ‘photo ops’, hey? These Arabs may be a threat but this is way over the top.

    Even worse, if there are any real 'Baddies' out there, this will simply warn them to be more careful. I wonder if Abbott/Brandis were so warned by the spooks. Not that they would have paid any attention.

    ‘No government is entitled to be taken at its word, especially this one’ you say and I can but agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe the media were all supplied with images & footage taken by police. So it's even worse- they all broadcast blatant propaganda and it may be true it may be hogwash.

      Delete
    2. @Anonymous - I would say that you are correct. I drove past the premises in Logan during the "action" and wondered what was happening. Some Men in Black (later I found out that these were AFP) appearing to stand guard outside a shop premise being videoed by another MIB. My first thought was that it was the filming of an advertisement.

      Delete
  5. And as always, Latika Bourke proves the most useful idiot in spreading the government's propoganda.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You would imagine that Brandis might have some idea about prejudicng a jury. But . . .

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was also shocked by Cassidy's endorsement of Scott Morrison. Surely there is more to running national security than appearing to be tough.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ‘No government is entitled to be taken at its word, especially this one.’

    Why do I get the feeling we all accept the truth of that statement - except for our boofhead media, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you Andrew, you have reassured me that I am not a paranoid conspiracy theorist to be so deeply sceptical of the current terror threat, deeply uncomfortable about how it is being reported and deeply worried about where it will take us.

    ReplyDelete
  10. From Richard Ackland's piece at The Guardian:

    As British politician Aneurin Bevan put it rather wonderfully when talking about Fleet Street, censorship and political patronage during the time of the Attlee government: “There is absolutely no need to muzzle sheep.”

    Says it all really....

    ReplyDelete
  11. As soon as I heard these raids unfolding and the hyperbole being used by people who are meant to be "the adults" my mind immediately went to Haneef & Rau, as well as Tamper. Ministers in this current government were found to have lied about the circumstances related to these incidents, but the media STILL quotes them with the gullibility of little children.

    Andrew - thanks for your commentary - I knew you'd cover this angle on this debacle with precision and accuracy.

    And as for Cassidy - finally revealed for the husk of the former reporter he once was.

    Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Americans have a term for these types of events - psy ops. It saddens me that it has come to this in Australia. Will our famed national bullshit detector rise to the this challenge? Probably not, however the one arrest apparently for what has been said, not what has been done could sway otherwise. However, it's likely to be forgotten by the time this gets to court.

    David Perth

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wrote a short comment about how Andrew eviscerates mainstream media, quoted the first paragraph here about Cassidy and linked to this article. It wasn't published, of course. Cassidy, like all the other fuckwits, can dish it out but can't take it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Barrie Cassidy has jumped the shark, and then some.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brownieboy19/9/14 9:13 pm

    After the burning of the Reichstag comes the Enabling Act. And after that, dictatorship.

    ReplyDelete
  16. For those who have not seen it, Lateline (19 sept) had an exec,,net discussion with security expert Allan Behm and barrister Greg Barns with particular reference to the media's handling of the raids and the dangers inherent in the proposed beefed up terrorism laws.

    Both men were lucid, calm and forensic.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Correct - it was an 'excellent' discussion, not the jumble which winged off.

    ReplyDelete
  18. After reading Barry Cassidy's Drumroll for Scott Morrison, I have come to the conclusion that some Midwich cuckoo has interfered with the thought processes of Australian journalists.

    Most of them seem to be under some sort of spell. I can't understand why journalists who should know better for their training belonged to better times, seem to judge the worth of a politician by his or her skills in manipulating voters and the media. Why is it too why journalists almost seem to welcome information being withheld from them.

    It has to be a malevolent cuckoo. I think your eyes become luminously blue. Blue! Eek. The ties!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think most of it is simple fear for their jobs. The tide is against real reportage at the moment (for various reasons). Journalists can only be principled if they work for principled employers.

      Delete
  19. As the blog roll grows longer and the MSM time decreasing rapidly you tend to avoid hysteria.
    I gave up on Barry Cassidy years ago.
    With the American Murdoch crime family black banned, Fairfax on-line being crap and TV news limited to SBS your outlook is much clearer.
    The MSM and politicians desperately need each in the effort to remain relevant and both are about as useful as a condom at a nun's picnic.
    It should be noted that the average person being involved in a terrorism incident is roughly the same as being bitten by a shark in the middle of Bourke street. Possible but not likely.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I watched my last Insiders this morning.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Back in 2008, I taught Year 8 history. I was part of a group of teacher who ran a lesson where I pretended that "our leader", Kevin Rudd, had announced a series of raids against "terrorists" who were possibly planning a major attack. I used preposterous numbers (hundreds of police in a coordinated raid, up to a hundred suspects). I threw in the AFL Grand Final as a possible target. Leader Rudd had then announced that for our own safety, police now had the right to arrest anyone suspected of being a "possible threat to the national interest".

    All the kids agreed that this was the right cause of action; they felt "safer" with the news that rights had been curtailed.

    The point I tried to make to them was that, for many in Nazi Germany (including the erudite diarist Victor Klemperer, a Jewish professor), it was all too easy to fall into the belief that a wolf was at the door. When motivated by such fears, it is scarily easy to lose sight of any sense of history, humanity and perspective.

    We didn't teach the lesson again because a few kids had become so convinced they were under threat that normal classes became difficult.

    In other news, John Howard tells Channel 7 that the "language" of the United States in 2002 was crucial in compelling him to go to war in 2002. Now he says - and I believe him - that he was "embarrassed" to find out there were no WMDs after all.

    We should all be wary of fear.

    - Joe (posting under anonymous)

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's all just too convenient isn't it. Ignore the governments problems with the "agenda" they are trying to implement and focus on the scarey boogie men with beards. It's disgraceful and depressing how stupid they think the general public is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately they are right. You know how unintelligent 'average' is? Remember that half the population is stupider than that.

      Delete
  23. The last three weeks have been frightening, not because a few disaffected young australians might lash out at society (we ignore that kind of spectacle daily) but seeing the ease with which an utterly marginal threat has been deliberately exagerrated for purely cynical ends. The completely credulous posture of our media resembles nothing on this issue so much as pure sycophancy.

    Our way of life is being deliberately degraded by the hysterical fearmongering of the elites within the state who will seize on any opportunity to accrue the sort of legal and financial power that our so-called representatives are falling over themselves to deliver.

    ReplyDelete