A cabin decompression on Qantas flight QF670 between Adelaide and Melbourne this morning pushed the terrorist attack at Moscow’s Domodedovo Airport off the top of this morning’s radio bulletins.
This is not a great reflection on news values in the Australian media.
In Moscow in an insecure part of an airport, the arrivals hall, a suicide bomber has killed at least 35 people and injured more than 150.
But the news priority locally is a 737 with 99 passengers on board that lost cabin pressure. The Qantas jet did descend steeply, as per the standard operating procedures for such an event, to 10,000 feet (just over 3000 metres) while oxygen masks dropped, and the jet landed at Tullamarine Airport 30 minutes later.
No emergency services were required. QF67 was met by reporters, not ambulances.
The real story is that at Tullamarine, and almost every other major airport in the world, the arrivals areas are unsecured, as are most places in life worldwide where people gather.
That is the overarching evil of the Domodedovo attack. It highlights the impossibility of securing places where the public freely gathers.
If airports such as those in Australia tried to seal off the arrivals halls, the target simply moves 100 metres, maybe 200, to an underground train platform or bus station, or to a car park.
The emphasis behind the scenes in this country, and most others apart from the hysterics we see in America, is on running the intelligence gathering necessary to get to terrorists before they get to an airport security screening line, or to an arrivals hall.
If previous incidents are any guide, the Moscow coverage will swing back to cheap headline grabs by politicians trying to push the nasty little hot buttons about border security, stranger danger, and the need to enforce strict ID tests on everyone to, somehow, control access to public areas.
ID paranoia is a commonplace stupidity in media coverage of terrorism in this country. Imagine, a terrorist not heading off to Flinders Street Station packed with explosives because they didn’t have the right ID!
The realities of airport terrorism, and some very sane advice from America’s Stratfor group on personal security awareness, are discussed in more depth on Crikey blog Plane Talking.
Recent reading about tv semiotics enlightened me with the fact that the priorities of tv news are local, national and a bit of international squeezed in before the sport.
I read this and immediately countered with, no way, whoever wrote this book is nuts. But then I watched Aus tv news again with different eyes and it is completely, utterly and astonishingly true.
Not so in the UK where the priorities are national, international and then a segment on local before the weather. Which makes sense right? (Except the weather.. cold and gloomy today, cold and gloomy tomorrow…)
Its hard to fathom why news editors (channel heads) do not wish to impart to Australians that things that happen internationally are actually important to us all and maybe deserve a bit of serious focus.
Honestly, I was flawed. Then again, I’m not surprised at all. Divide, dumb-down and conquer.
“Not so in the UK where the priorities are national, international and then a segment on local before the weather. Which makes sense right?”
Not really. Things happening down the street are vastly more relevant to people than things happening on the other side of the world.
“Its hard to fathom why news editors (channel heads) do not wish to impart to Australians that things that happen internationally are actually important to us all and maybe deserve a bit of serious focus.”
More likely is that they understand most people care a hell of a lot more about things happening in their local areas than foreign countries.
There is no shortage of resources about international events available if you’re interested, even in the mainstream media.
Dr, there’s really no argument to be had here. If you think that the saving of a puppy that fell down a drain, the local rowing club that is trying to raise funds to buy a new boat, or that girl with the AFL photos is ‘vastly more important’ than what’s going on in Russia, North Korea, Egypt etc., then that’s fine and up to you. You have three news programs each night that will fulfill your desires – about 2 million other people watch them every day too so you’re in good company.
I prefer to have a bit more understanding about the world, I do live in it and Australia is a non-minor player in it. The American example of the majority of the population not even knowing where Korea is – let’s face it Sarah Palin couldn’t even work out whether North or South was the enemy – doesn’t sit well with me. I wasn’t kidding about divide, dumb-down and conquer.
People may ‘care a hell of a lot more about things happening in their local areas than foreign countries’ – but that doesn’t mean they should. Everyone should have an understanding about their place in the world – how can we have a hope of encouraging social responsibility and global sustainability if noone has an understanding of what’s going on out there?
Anyway, there’s is absolutely a place for local news, I don’t dispute it. But international and national understanding is important, and I believe should be the priority in tv news.
(Apologies if this comes out wrong, my first venture with the blockquote tag.)
I can guarantee you more people in Brisbane cared about the floods there than they did about the ones in Pakistan, yet presumably you would argue Pakistan’s should have received more coverage by dint of being “international”.
Great. There are a plethora of internationally-themed shows that can cater to your needs, without any pesky local even distracting you. Why should a general news program *in addition to those* prioritise international events ?
Why not ? Why should I care more that Berlusconi has been linked with underage prostitutes than I should about a local police officer charged with child abuse ?
Everyone should have an understanding about their place in the world – how can we have a hope of encouraging social responsibility and global sustainability if noone has an understanding of what’s going on out there?
I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise.
Anyway, there’s is absolutely a place for local news, I don’t dispute it. But international and national understanding is important, and I believe should be the priority in tv news.
With what justification ? By what measure are events on the other side of the world with little, if any direct consequences to anyone *in all of Australia* more important to report than local events often having a direct effect on everyone from your neighbour to your doctor ?
Why is it that some people on these boards purposely choose to twist someone else’s opinion/argument in an attempt to undermine them?
Is it not possible for you to simply say “I disagree with you and here’s why.”? No, instead posts like yours which can’t see the wood for the trees twist some things, entirely fabricate others and only serve to antagonise and necessitate someone else embarking on a personal defence, point by point, syllable by syllable. Its so dull, I can’t tell you.
Please point to the spot where I said the Pakistan floods should receive more attention than the Brisbane floods (although I myself would refer to them as the QLD floods being interested as I am in issues wider than my neighbourhood). Please highlight the line where I say that local news is ‘pesky’ and/or ‘distracting’ – or even unimportant? As for “I don’t see anyone arguing otherwise” – you are.
So I’ll answer your points and if you wish to come back and debate me then I’ll be here. But if you’re just going to be rude then, matey, I’ve really got far better things to do.
1. The 6pm nightly news isn’t just a ‘a general news program’ – its the news. People watch it to be informed, and they learn from it whats going on in ‘the world’ or ‘their world’, however you want to describe it. As it stands today (it wasn’t like this 20 years ago) ‘the world’ we are told about is extremely limited and closed. As such, people are less informed about national and global events.
2. I did not and would not suggest that Berlusconi’s philandering is worthy of prime time media attention in Australia. Were it not for the fact that she was underage, I don’t think the story deserves any real coverage at all as, personally, who sleeps with who is none of my business unless its illegal or affecting the running of the country.
3. I do however think that the financial woes of countries including Ireland and Greece should rate a mention. Why? Because the mess they are in is going to affect the whole globe. Because there is mass unemployment and there are riots and people are being killed in acts of political violence. Should this story be mentioned at the expense of the story you refer to about a police officer? No, it shouldn’t. But why does it need to be? Why can’t we have both? Its not like networks don’t have enough time to cover both, and its not like, as I say above, the network news don’t use fillers like the cat story, the fundraising story etc.
4. As you totally disregarded the fact that I said this, I will say it again: There’s is absolutely a place for local news, I don’t dispute it.
5. You say: “With what justification? By what measure are events on the other side of the world with little, if any direct consequences to anyone *in all of Australia* more important to report than local events often having a direct effect on everyone from your neighbour to your doctor?”
Firstly, that’s a crappy attempt at an argument. “Often have a direct effect”? Often? Is that the best you can come up with? But this one’s the doozy. “By what measure are events on the other side of the world with little, if any direct consequences to anyone *in all of Australia*….”
Well, here’s your starter for 10:
– Iran stockpiling nuclear weapons – potential direct effect by blowing us all to kingdom come.
– The US Commission report into the global financial crisis – well, the ‘global’ part gives it away for me but I can explain if you want me to.
– Egypt on alert for mass protests – the growing instability of individual countries in the Middle East has a very real and very direct affect on the security of this nation.
– Mandela second night in hospital – granted, the death of Nelson Mandela will not impact this country to a great extent, but come on, its Nelson Mandela! Nobel peace prize winner and ender of the cruel regime of apartheid. You don’t think that’s of interest or importance? You think the cat story is more deserving?
– News of the world phone hacking scandal – you don’t think its of interest and importance that the companies of the man who owns a mighty segment of our media, including the tv news, have engaged in illegal activity? You don’t think a media organisation showing complete contempt for individual’s right to privacy should be hauled out on front of news watchers in this country?
– Ban Ki-moon ends hands-on involvement in climate change talks – not relevant to Australia after a PM was deposed last year for failing on climate change amongst other things?
If you honest to goodness think that these types of stories do not rate the attention of the Australian media and the Australian public, then I’m not sure whether I want to run screaming from your world, or actually move right in. It seems pretty quiet in there.