I performed the following letter at the inaugral Canberra Women Of Letters event staged at the National Library of Australia this week as part of the Handwritten exhibition. Women of Letters is a literary salon curated by Marieke hardy and Michaela McGuire. The theme of the night was 'A letter about the history you'd like to change'. I chose to write my letter to my fiften year old self. The experience was cathartic and confronting...but ultimately liberating. Please write back...in the comments below.

February 16th, 2012

Dear Julie,

You don’t know me yet...but I know you intimately.

I know your past, your future and your present.

I can see you now, squatting, huddled with your little sister on the floor of your cluttered wardrobe. You’re trying to stem her sobs as the sound of doors slamming, screaming voices and smashing glass pierce the quiet suburban night. You’re worried your stepfather will hear your little sister as you try to stop her hyperventilating tears.

You show your sister only your strong face. You whisper comforting words. But you just want to scream at the injustice and stare down the violent man who turns your book-bound nights into horror stories.

I wish I could reach into your present and rescue you from that cupboard. Transport you to a safe place. But I have no time-turner. All I have are these words.

You are strong, Julie. Stronger than you know. You are brave and resilient. And you already know the power of perseverance...at fifteen.

The police will answer your neighbour’s call tonight, but they will not see the covered bruises. You’ll have to watch them walk away. And he will never change.

I wish I could tell you that you will get out of the house tonight, fall into the safety of Grandma’s bed and never have to return to this dark place. I cannot. Not yet. But I can tell you that you will survive.

You will escape this place. Your mother will finally break free. Your sister will be protected. You will find a home to which you can return in the evening without fear. From which you are not forced to flee in the middle of the night...

You will meet men who prefer the power of words to speaking with their fists. You will even find a few who are tender and reliable.

Your brave, generous heart will know love...selfless love...and great friendship.

But a caution: I know you like to wear that bruised heart on your sleeve, and I so admire that about you...but be careful with it. Exposed hearts are more vulnerable to abuse.

And something you should know: that wit you’re so proud of, that dimpled smile that masks pain, the laugh that mocks adversity, the scaffolding you’ve built – they will not fool everyone. And they cannot protect you from heartache and heartbreak...you will know them both.

Why am I telling you all this? Why don’t I just write down the next winning lotto numbers and the name of the man you’ll marry and sign off now??

Because, what you survive and how you survive it will be your history. You will trip and fall - sometimes painfully - but it’s in living through trials and triumphs that your identity will be formed. Know that you will never fail to get back up when you are knocked down.

You are smart, girl. And terribly outspoken. Those books piled on the floor and that fast tongue are your key to an interesting life. Use them both wisely.

People will ask you “Don’t you ever wish that you’d just kept your mouth shut??” Well, at times you probably will...but you should never be cowed by the many bullies you’ll encounter who want to keep the truth hidden or misrepresent it to the world.

What you’re enduring now is cementing in you a heart for social justice, a commitment to freedom of expression, a determination to speak truth to power, a refusal to sacrifice your integrity...if you can soften those quests with an ability to listen and an appreciation of silent moments...if you can accept that betrayal, pain, disappointment and grief are inevitable human experiences...if you can figure out how to avoid fearing regret...your life will be rich, interesting and balanced.

I need to go now, but one promise for the future I want to leave you with...you will know the love of your own child...I’m looking at her now. And every day she reminds me more of you.

With love from the future,

x Julie

PS Oh, one more thing: remember this - a Poodle Perm is NEVER a good idea!
PPS And another thing: the Internet will be big    [read more]

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has fuelled calls for a public inquiry into the media in the wake of #Hackgate, telling journalists that News Corp's Australian subsidiary News Ltd has some "hard questions" to answer. Although she didn't appear to be able to identify, nor articulate, those questions.

Unsurprisingly, News Ltd's chief John Hartigan has dismissed calls for an inquiry (although he's more recently agreed to co-operate fully with an inquiry - as have many loyal News Ltd journalists and Opposition politicians. And he continues to reject connections between the News Corp crisis, which is threatening to sink News International and is spreading with speed to the US, and News Ltd's Australian operations (which, significantly, account for 70% of the Australian print media). Nevertheless, he's initiated a review of editorial expenditure across the company dating back three years (i.e. not dating back to the period in question involving UK cases of phonehacking or police payments).

I have some suggestions for some 'hard' questions the PM's office might like to consider.

Over at New Matilda, UTS journalism professor and noted Australian investigative journalist, Wendy Bacon, is crowdsourcing suggestions for questions to put to a media inquiry (which she argues should address regulation and media ownership), along with some specific lines of inquiry regarding News Ltd, including:

* Should News Ltd close one or more newspapers in Australian without there being a buyer what steps can be taken to protect access to media by Australians?

* Has News Ltd’s practice of sharing information and stories across the company meant that their Australian tabloid audiences have been exposed to stories resulting from hacking and bribes?

* Do News Ltd editors respect the professional independence of their journalists or do they compaign to impose certain views or political lines on their journalists to the detriment of the public - e.g. in relation to climate change.

My questions for News Ltd management

I have some additional questions I'd like answered by News Ltd. And I'd welcome John Hartigan's responses:


1) When did John Hartigan (and his editors) first learn of the allegations of hacking, payments to police and the cover-up (now identified by a British parliamentary select committee) afflicting News International?

2) What steps did Mr Hartigan and his editors put in place then to ensure such practices were not happening within NewsCorp's Australian titles?

3) What advice did he issue editors regarding publication of copy emanating from the very tainted News of the World when it was clear (at the latest in December last year, when Rebekah Brooks says she was made aware) that the problem was widespread at the News of the World?

4) Were any of his journalists assigned to News of the World in their capacity as News Ltd employees for additional reporting?

5) If the answers to 4) is yes, has Mr Hartigan (or his editors) examined their records for evidence of expenditure on PIs, phone 'hacking', questionable payments to sources etc If not, why not? If yes, what has he (or his editors)found?

6) Have any News Ltd journalists or editors worked as stringers for NOTW assignments in Australia? (This question is one editors at News Ltd competitors should also be asking of their journalists)

7) When was the last News Ltd journalist dispatched to News of the World in an exchange program or on a placement extended as a 'reward' for journalistic excellence? Did Mr Hartigan/other executives approve such arrangements after becoming aware of the seriousness of the problem? If so, why? And what inquiries have been made as regards their experiences/practices while working at News of the World during the period now under examination?

8) What instructions are NewsLtd editors giving to other executive editors and/or reporters regarding company/editorial policy on coverage of #hackgate?

9) What instructions are being issued to journalists regarding coverage of matters of national importance such as climate change and politics? (These questions should also be put to NewsLtd's competitors)

10) What is the internal process at News Ltd for examining journalists' complaints about ethics and professionalism? What is the policy re: handling such complaints and where is it published? (Also a relevant question for News Ltd's competitors)

11) When News Ltd journalists and editors threaten to sue other citizens/their critics over public comment/reportage (as I have been threatened by the Editor in Chief of the Australian, Chris Mitchell), who foots their legal bills?

These are questions I'd like to hear journalists and citizens asking News Ltd but I'd also encourage the PM's office to consider them after failing yesterday to identify any specific 'hard' questions worth of a response.

Is a broader media inquiry needed in Australia?

I support a public inquiry into Australian media - if there's nothing to hide, why resist? It could be useful in encouraging transparency in media practice, accountability and trust in an important democratic institution. But I'm not yet convinced a parliamentary inquiry is the best venue for such an investigation. What about a broader public inquiry with government, NGO, judicial, academic and community representation?

Similarly, I support public consultation on privacy law reform as long as there's a clear commitment to balance the right to privacy against 'public interest' (as distinct from public interest in something) tests and freedom of expression principles. Although, I'd feel more comfortable if Australia enshrined freedom of expression rights in the constitution in conjunction with privacy law reform that will make it possible to sue for serious privacy breaches.

I agree that political alliances with media barons (particularly as regards News Ltd, given that company's dominance of the Australian marketplace & the evident commitment of that stable to 'regime change') need examination - and that requires inquiries of politicians and political parties' records, not just the media transparency.

Stronger independent oversight

I'd also like this prospect examined: an all media council, comprising industry representatives, community reference groups and journalism/media academics, that acts as a referral body for complaints and investigations sitting above ACMA & the Australian Press Council - both of which have proven ineffectual historically in significant investigations into media ethics and professionalism.

It may also be worth considering a 'readers' editor' be mandated at every publication under whose guidance, concerns can be debated and complaints published (online and in print), along with internal findings.

I'm an advocate of media freedom and I'm opposed to government press regulation in principle as it has proven to be a refuge for despots and dictators, although I believe the time is right to review media ownership laws in Australia. But in light of a media scandal with global implications, journalists and media organisations can't afford to resist public accountability, nor deny an open examination of media ethics and practices in this country.

That's my initial contribution to this important discussion. I say bring on an inquiry, make journalism and media organisations more transparent and thereby strengthen both public trust and professional journalism's credibility.

Meantime, please share your questions and ideas here and elsewhere, to keep this important debate on the national agenda    [read more]

Legendary Australian broadcaster Mark Colvin is known for the timbre of his voice, his broad knowledge of international affairs, his erudite interviewing and his content-rich Twitter-feed.

But the presenter of the ABC’s PM program - a three-time foreign correspondent for the Australian national broadcaster - this week made a mark on my University of Canberra Advanced Broadcast Journalism class with his candor and resilience as he talked about his experiences of reporting war, famine and upheaval across the globe.

These experiences include losing two of his colleagues to violence in Africa and the Middle East in the early 1980s. But the greatest price he paid for bearing witness was his own health. He contracted a deadly auto-immune disease after being exposed to a virus amidst rotting corpses while reporting on the Rwandan genocide in 1994 - a story he described as a "never-ending cycle of death". He is now awaiting a kidney transplant

Nevertheless, he presents the flagship ABC Radio current affairs programme PM five nights a week to which he brings the benefits of an Oxford education and an incredible appetite for international news told from global perspectives. He is also a highly engaged practitioner of social media journalism, interacting with his audience via his iPad – even when he’s hooked up to a dialysis machine in hospital.

These characteristics of resilience, perseverance and tenacity were on ample display when he beamed into our Canberra lecture theatre via Skype on Wednesday morning from his Sydney kitchen.



His presentation took the form of an interactive interview – with questions from me, students in the Canberra University lecture theatre, and remotely via Twitter.

With characteristic self-deprecation, he told us he was ill-prepared for his first posting to London, at the age of 27, and brought "naivety and stupidity" to the job. But he was forced to mature quickly, being terribly traumatised by exposure to significant risk, inhumanity and loss. In fact, he told us he felt like he suffered from a severe but undiagnosed case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after covering the Iranian Revolution. And, later, when reporting on the terrible famine in Ethiopia after having a family, he said exposure to the suffering of children affected him "...so far deep down in the gut it was almost like having a nervous breakdown."

But this trauma, and the illness that now prevents him from travelling the globe, have not dented his desire to work as a foreign correspondent. He says he has no regrets and answered a Twitter question from a student asking if he wished he could be in the field reporting the current upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa, emphatically, "Yes".

You can watch the video of the lecture here or listen to the audio only version.

Unfortunately, the lecture recording was cut short, but Mark Colvin left us with two key messages: foreign reporting has been transformed by technology, with Twitter being identified by the self-described "dinosaur" as one of the best tools available to journalists, with its capacity to facilitate audience engagement, the crowdsourcing of research and access to global views. And in response to the last student question "What keeps you motivated as a journalist?", he answered with one word: "Curiosity".

Afterwards, Mark Colvin tweeted to me his concern that he'd painted too frightening a picture of being a foreign correspondent and noted that he had also spent significant time in Rome, Paris and Madrid during his foreign postings. But he needn't have worried. While he talked in detail, with great candor, about his reporting assignments and the trauma he experienced in the field, the impact on students was inspirational, rather than depressing. And many of them tweeted about the way in which they had been moved and motivated by Mark Colvin’s story once the lecture was over.
















   [read more]

Since #Twitdef began in late November, I have had the extraordinary experience of seeing my name in the headlines, as the Editor in Chief of The Australian , Chris Mitchell, repeatedly threatened to sue me for defamation, via his newspaper.

The threats came in response to a few tweets I posted during the Journalism Education Association of Australia conference in Sydney on November 25th, in which I quoted Mitchell’s former employee, well-respected rural reporter Asa Wahlquist, who addressed the conference. She was highly critical of The Australian’s stance on Climate Change.

You can read the background here. And you can listen to Wahlquist's address on the ABC's website

Last week, I received a letter of demand from Mitchell’s lawyers, requiring an apology for my tweets and inviting me to visit The Australian to observe the operations of its newsroom and editorial processes.

Today, my lawyers - engaged by the University of Canberra, my employer - have responded to Mitchell's letter

Unfortunately I remain limited in what I can say at this point. But the ongoing support of colleagues in media, academia, and in online communtiies like Twitter, is very much appreciated.

Please note: due to the ongoing threat of legal action in this case, I am unable to post comments on this story at this stage. But I am enjoying reading the comments you're contributing nonetheless! :)    [read more]

Chris Mitchell, the Editor in Chief of Rupert Murdoch's flagship newspaper in Australia The Australian, is threatening to sue me for defamation over tweets I posted from an academic conference of journalism educators held in Sydney last week.

He is using his newspaper to make these threats and he has repeated them to Crikey

The tweets I posted quoted one of Mitchell's former reporters, award winning rural and science journalist Asa Wahlquist, who delivered an address to a panel on the reporting of Climate Change at The Australian during the Journalism Education Association Australia conference on Thursday.

I was attending the conference at the University of Technology as a speaker, in my capacity as a University of Canberra (UC) journalism lecturer.

UC Vice Chancellor, Professor Stephen Parker, has provided the following statement on the issue:

“(I am) aware of the situation and (I am) concerned about the implications of it for freedom of academic expression. (I) continue to provide full support for academics providing responsible comment on matters of public interest such as this, which includes accurately summarising what experienced journalists have said about the workings of the nation’s media”

All I am personally permitted to say on the issue at this stage is the following: "My University has not received any communication from Mr Mitchell and I have been asked not to comment further on the detail of what transpired until we know what allegations are being made against me and the University and have had an opportunity to take legal advice.”

I continue to strongly value media freedom and freedom of expression.

The only other thing I can say publicly at this point is...thanks to all those who have offered well wishes and support. It is very much appreciated.

* Twitdef (abbreviated from 'Twitter Defamation') Is a Twitter hashtag established by a micro-blogger to aggregate some of the conversation on Twitter swirling around the issue    [read more]

A global study has confirmed women are grossly under-represented in the news – both as producers of it and characters within it.

The result, according to ‘Who Makes the News?’, is a picture of women who are largely absent and the projection of a “male-centred view of the world”. This effect is not just the product of who is portrayed and how they’re portrayed, but who’s invisible in the news…and what issues are ignored.

The study has also found that when women are represented, they’re poorly represented: predominantly portrayed in gendered roles, as wives and mothers, rather than in reference to their professional achievements.

The Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP) – designed to increase women's access to media and challenge gender stereotyping in the news - began in 1995 as an initiative of the United Nations Fourth Conference on Women held in Beijing. Every five years, the GMMP takes an international snapshot of mainstream news coverage of women in an effort to measure the quantity of women’s voices and the quality of their representation.

Newspapers, along with major radio and television news bulletins in 130 countries, including Australia, are being monitored and assessed as part of the project, which this time also measured major news websites’ coverage in a subset of 25 countries. And this instalment of the study represents a snapshot taken on November 10th, 2009.

The full report is due for completion in September but preliminary results were released last week, based on the data collected from 42 countries, including progressive democracies like South Africa, Switzerland and Sweden but excluding North American and Australian data which is not yet available.

6,902 news stories containing 14044 sources were analysed to produce the preliminary findings of the Global Media Monitoring Project 2010. They include:

• Only 24% of people covered in the news are women (up 3% on the 2005 figures)
• Only 18% of ‘experts’ featured in news stories are women (but 47% of sources reflecting popular opinion were women)
• Only 16% of issues covered specifically related to women
• Issues identified as being of special concern to women (e.g. violence against women; economic empowerment; political participation) averaged less than 1.5% of coverage
• Print was judged as the provider of the best coverage in the above categories while radio offered the worst reportage.
• Women are five times more likely to be represented in connection with their domestic roles (mother, wife etc) than men.
• News stories are six times more likely to reinforce gender stereotypes than challenge them
• Women remain underemployed as news producers and presenters with a staggering 17% decline measured in female radio reporters since 2005 to 27%

This last finding is critical as the study has also found that women reporters are twice as likely to challenge gender stereotypes (at the rate of 11% versus 6%). And news stories identified as being told by female reporters are also significantly more likely to include female characters (26% versus 19%)

So, the employment of women as journalists is, not surprisingly, likely to be critical to transformation of coverage of women. And, despite the serious decline in the number of women reporting for radio news, there were slight increases recorded in women reporters within television news (up 2% to 44%) and in newspapers (up 6% to 35%).

These findings contrast the feminisation of journalism courses where women graduates now so frequently outnumber men in Australia, that calls to journalism educators (like me) from News Editors targeting male graduates for employment, to ‘even out the numbers on air’, are not unusual.

But, as many women survivors of newsrooms know – it’s one thing to get a job as a journalist, it’s another thing to be assigned the big stories, or to carry what are perceived to be the most newsworthy rounds – economics and politics, for example. And it’s another battle entirely to get into editorial management positions which dictate assignments and often influence stories’ framing.

Senior women journalists report that things are changing - slowly. And progress can be seen and heard from inside the Canberra Press Gallery where more working mothers are occupying high profile roles.

One of the report’s preliminary recommendations is for the creation of training modules for students of media – in school and at university – to assist in improving the standard of coverage of women and women’s issues. And, while the media will always reflect and magnify broader societal prejudices, there’s value in such training – for both male and female students. But, from experience, such educational reform only really has significant and timely impact if newsrooms are convinced there is a problem, and if their managers agree to embrace such training.
,
Until such change occurs, male-dominated news management ranks will continue to favour male reporters with the plum assignments; women will continue to be ignored or poorly represented as news subjects; and issues that most interest and affect women will continue to be under-reported.

Meantime, women will continue to seek alternative and self-representation through blogs and online communities that both value their contributions and represent their interests.

The most powerfully written and compelling stories I’ve read in the past month were women’s stories told by the women who lived them. They weren't news stories - in fact they may be judged through masculinist news lenses as 'too emotional', but they were personalised, human tales that resonated...with men and women.

You’d think that with the assault being endured by mainstream media outlets, fair and meaningful coverage of women and the issues that most engage 50% of the population would be a ‘no brainer’. But I don’t hear many editors screaming “Hold the front page…for a woman”.

If you'd like to hear me talking about this issue with ABC 666's Louise Maher, click here. I talk media issues with Louise each Monday afternoon    [read more]

This has been a most extraordinary week in Australian Federal politics. A week in which the future of the Liberal Party looked as uncertain as Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership appears untenable. A week in which hard right ideologues seemed determined to make the Coalition unelectable in an environmentally aware world. A week in which reformation of Conservative politics in Australia along new ideological lines began to seem plausible. A week in which political journalists and politicians made Twitter and text messaging centre-stage in news-breaking, story telling and media management. A week in which political hyperbole reached new heights of absurdity.

It started on Tuesday afternoon with renewed leadership speculation surrounding Malcolm Turnbull as he attempted to ram climate change legislation (in the form of an Emissions Trading Scheme) through both the party room and the parliament in a rare show of bipartisanship in Australian federal politics.

During question time that day, it became apparent that the ideological fault lines within the Federal Opposition were starting to tremor.

TWEET

TWEET

It emerged that, according to some of his internal political enemies, Turnbull had enforced Party Room ‘unity’ on the ETS legislation (timetabled to pass ahead of the Copenhagen summit) despite majority opposition, telling his detractors he was leader and would set policy before storming out of the meeting.

Ahead of widespread speculation about a leadership spill, I predicted Turnbull would be ousted within 24 hours.

TWEET

It was an audacious (some might charge 'reckless') call, but I could smell the blood and hear the wolves baying.

That evening, after a marathon eight hour Party Room meeting punctuated by interruptions which provided opportunities for dissidents to text message details of the negotiations to journalists, only the Liberal Party’s loony right, personified by the ranting Wilson Tuckey, was publicly talking of a leadership spill.

But the Canberra Press Gallery and the political junkies (me included) following and participating in the story’s dramatic twists & turns via Twitter were breathlessly posting #spill #spill #spill.

TWEET

TWEET

TWEET

TWEET

As the backroom dealing and the brinkmanship continued, Turnbull went on the ABC’s influential AM program on Wednesday morning, ruling out any facilitation on his part of a leadership spill motion. And party rules require the leader’s ascent for such a showdown.

But by 11am, journalists were tweeting the news that a 1pm Coalition Party Room meeting had been called, at which a spill motion would be put. The stalking horse named Kevin Andrews, an arch conservative who applies religious zeal to climate change denial, was the lone challenger. The motion to allow a vote on the leadership was defeated by a less than convincing margin and Turnbull fronted the media continuing his “I am the leader” riff.

And although the ructions continued to bubble below the surface, even Press Gallery veterans with whom I shared dinner on Wednesday night gave Turnbull a 50/50 chance of political survival…at least until after Christmas.

During Question Time on Thursday, it still seemed likely that the ETS would ultimately pass the Senate, in accordance with an agreement reached between the Opposition and the Rudd Government, by Friday afternoon. But almost as soon as the session was over, the leadership speculation resumed and the spill became a flood as Shadow Minister Tony Abbott began the front bench exodus.

The body pile continued to mount throughout the afternoon and journalists were tweeting the news faster than they could write it. Senator Eric Abetz gone. Senator Minchin going. This one gone. That one gone. Another one bites the dust. By the time Turnbull finally called a press conference for 7pm, he’d lost 10 front benchers, at the end of a day unprecedented in Australian Federal politics according to veteran Press Gallery journalists and even seasoned Coalition politicians!

I wondered aloud about the prospect of a split within the Coalition, invoking the spectre of the 1955 split within the Australian Labor Party which birthed the socially conservative Democratic Labor Party and the 1970s formation of the now virtually defunct Australian Democrats.

TWEET

TWEET

I envisaged a Coalition divided along new ideological lines – with social progressives in one camp (the New Democrats or the Progressive Liberals?) and the conservatives (melding National Party representatives with socially conservative Liberals) in the other. This could present a redesigned four-party Australian political landscape: Labor, Greens, Progressive Liberals and National Conservatives.

When he fronted the media pack in a press conference broadcast live into ABC nightly news last night, Turnbull surprised us all with a refusal to entertain the prospect of resignation, giving the impression of an impassioned, unflappable leader of enormous strength and admirable ideals. One thing was clear: here was a leader for a new generation. For a repositioned, socially progressive Australian Liberal Party. A leader who was prepared to bury Howard’s ghost.

TWEET

TWEET

TWEET

But it was also clear from within the party imploding behind him – which was now leaking like a rusty sieve - that he was a member of the political walking dead.

And in that context, the hyperbole reached fever pitch. After political journalist Samantha Maiden appeared on Sky News describing Turnbull as a victim of “political terrorism” the network’s political editor David Speers read a text message live to air from a Liberal Party opponent of Turnbull’s who said his leader was “behaving like Hitler in his Berlin bunker”.

The flaring language in the midst of a major political crisis is familiar. The speed with which it’s being transmitted – in real time via social media like text messaging and Twitter – is new. And in that process – as these platforms invade the traditional media space, and both feature in and facilitate coverage and conversation, they’re changing the rules of political reporting.

TWEET

Journalists are interacting with one another and citizen commentators as they report the news instantaneously via Twitter – interchanges which are influencing the framing of the news and laying bare the processes of story construction.

TWEET

TWEET

TWEET

It’s fascinating viewing for a journalism academic and invigorating for active citizens of all persuasions to watch the upheaval unfold moment by moment on Twitter.

TWEET

But it would be excruciating viewing for the politician who first tweeted from his own press conference when Twitter was little more than a novelty: Malcolm Turnbull.

Enter Joe Hockey: former Turnbull backer and one of the socially progressive New Guard within the Liberal Party who helped negotiate the planned passage of the ETS. He's now canvassing for public reaction to his own leadership ambitions, belatedly testing public support for the passage of the ETS legislation via Twitter.

TWEET

The subtext reads: will you have me as your leader tweeps? That’s a subtext being interpreted by veteran political journalist Michelle Grattan (a recent Twitter entrant) as a leadership nomination.

TWEET

And it’s a subtext given force today by Tony “The Mad Monk” Abbott who's signed Turnbull’s leadership death warrant, saying he’ll move a #spill motion on Monday unless the ETS legislation is delayed this afternoon.

So, as former staunch Turnbull supporter Joe Hockey firms as the prime candidate for a successful leadership challenge on Monday, the coalition of climate change deniers and leadership change opportunists prepare to filibuster on the ETS legislation to ensure it isn’t passed before the baton is.

And the 3.45pm deadline laid out in the bi-partisan agreement for the passage of the legislation in the Senate looks as shot as Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the Australian Opposition.

All the while, the Twitter backchannel is chanting "It's Climate Change, stupid".

TWEET    [read more]

I started my professional life as a radio news journalist – with skills honed inside the walls of the Media 140 conference venue - the ABC Centre in Sydney. I was taught that Accuracy, Brevity & Clarity were the A, B & C of good news writing. Twitter is a perfect platform for testing those principles of good practice.

Twitter is one of the new tools I now use in my journalism classes at the University of Canberra to teach my students that pithiness can pack real punch. In September 2008, I took them on a political reporting exercise using the platform: they tweeted the ACT election & some of the journalists in the tally-room came to see what they were up to…most had never heard of Twitter. In the past year, though, it’s made headlines around the world – first in Mumbai…then through reporting of the Hudson River plane crash. In Australia, the ABC led the way with coverage of the Victoria bushfires.

There’s also been the opening up of the Australian houses of parliament to live reporting, with journalists now interactively tweeting Question Time – a reporting practice which is attracting new audiences to the discourses of Australian democracy – headlined by the uber-witty Sydney Morning Herald writer (and newly appointed chief online correspondent for ABC) Annabel Crabb.

And then there’s the iinet trial before the Federal Court. In early May, I tweeted:

“What's the difference between a journo Tweeting or live blogging a court case & a reporter txt messaging a judgement from the courtroom?”

Last month, the Federal Court overturned a decades'-long bar on reporting from within a court-room & accommodated Twitter, afterwards acknowledging its potential value. Meantime, The Australian barred one of the pioneering Journo-Twits, Andrew Colley, from live-tweeting the case while they assessed the legal & business implications. How very myopic & unadventurous.

Of course, Twitter isn’t journalistic utopia…there are a number of significant challenges. In the course of my research, I’ve identified the potential conflict between the personal and the professional created by a medium that encourages private reflections in a public space. As much as many journalists – including me – struggle with this perceived conflict, I’ve concluded that the humanising effect of removing the professional mask and revealing aspects of personality and private experiences is valuable. It’s also valued by online audiences where authentic voices are highly rated. And through this process, journalists are forging online relationships with media consumers, creating individual brands that draw new audiences to their work.

The biggest test for journalism & Twitter to date came during the Iran Uprising where Citizen-Journalism, crowd-sourcing and the speed imperative combined in the absence of a professional media presence to produce a seismic shift in reporting practice… publish first & check the facts later. Content from protesters & observers on the ground was published ahead of verification …on the websites of some of the world’s most reputable mastheads, including the New York Times. It was a watershed foreign reporting moment which highlights the challenges posed by Twitter and other real-time medium to the essential journalistic values of truth and accuracy. While embracing exciting new publication platforms & information-oriented communities, we need to remember that accuracy & verification are the antidotes to an overdose on speed (A panel & discussion on the implications of Iran for Social Media Journalism was held during the conference, featuring ABC's PM presenter, Mark Colvin & Al Jazeera's Head of Social Media, Riyaad Minty. View it here)

But if there’s one case study globally that proves the value of Twitter to journalists and journalism it’s Trafigura: a tale worthy of John Grisham.

As Alan Rusbridger, The Guardian’s Editor put it: “A mix of old media and the Twittersphere blew away conventional efforts to buy silence”

The story revolved around an attempted cover-up by the Trafigura trading company which was the subject of a mass litigation for injury to 30,000 citizens of Ivory Coast, following a toxic sludge-dumping incident. At first, the company succeeded in obtaining a gag order on The Guardian to stop it revealing a leaked report associated with the case…but when the company succeeded in obtaining a super-injunction from the British Courts to prevent The Guardian from reporting an MP’s question to parliament about the case - effectively over-turning 300 years of media freedom – Rusbridger saw red…and turned to Twitter, posting this tweet:

"Now Guardian prevented from reporting parliament for unreportable reasons. Did John Wilkes live in vain?"

Rusbridger wrote of the experience: “By the time I got home, after stopping off for a meal with friends, the Twittersphere had gone into meltdown. Twitterers had sleuthed down Farrelly's question, published the relevant links and were now seriously on the case. By midday on Tuesday "Trafigura" was one of the most searched terms in Europe, helped along by re-tweets by Stephen Fry and his 830,000-odd followers.

Many tweeters were just registering support or outrage. Others were beavering away to see if they could find suppressed information on the far reaches of the web. One or two legal experts uncovered the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, wondering if that would help? Common #hashtags were quickly developed, making the material easily discoverable.

By lunchtime – an hour before we were due in court – Trafigura threw in the towel…blown away by a newspaper, together with the mass collaboration of total strangers on the web. Trafigura thought it was buying silence. A combination of old media – the Guardian – and new – Twitter – turned attempted obscurity into mass notoriety.”

As Rusbridger observed in the aftermath:

“Twitter's detractors are used to sneering that nothing of value can be said in 140 characters. My 104 characters did just fine.”

This case demonstrated the capacity for journalists to use Twitter as a massive human search engine – to sift the tonnes of information available online in a collective effort, for the benefit of both excellent journalism & democracy. It also revealed the capacity for Twitter mobs to effect change through the application of tweet-heat – a process by which protesters uttering disgust & dismay, caused a topic to trend as they united through aggregating hashtags.

In the aftermath, the British parliament began debating the implications for free speech and there are suggestions of an overhaul of legislation that enabled the offending judgement. This was not just a victory for Twitter and The Guardian. It was a victory for democracy and media freedom. Activist journalism in the Social Media Age involves mobilising online communities and Twitter is currently the most effective of these.

So, let Trafigura put to rest the notion that Twitter is just a fad, full of narcissistic banality, which can afford to be ignored by newsrooms and individual journalists alike. There is currently real journalistic value in Twitter. And that value is not best extracted by dropping into others’ sites as a non-user, but in creating a journalistic identity for yourself on the platform; by making new connections outside your professional and personal silos; by genuninely engaging with followers – not just using the medium as another broadcast device. Don’t expect to have your followers feeding you exclusives & helping you with research if you’re a selfish tweeter Building genuine relationships with audiences & involving them in journalistic processes will help build interest in the quality journalism you produce & it will help mitigate the widespread distrust of mainstream media.

Twitter is entrenching the new news order: where the top-down model of information delivery presided over by an elite few is being swapped for peer-to-peer delivery on online social networking sites …the story-tellers are among us and they’re setting their own news agenda – at a cracking pace. Professional journalists need to figure out how to be distinctive and trusted information purveyors in these spaces.

Central to navigating this new territory will be responses from employers, Journalism academics, professional organisations like Australia's Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance & employers. While I believe it’s now essential for journalists and media outlets to be involved on Twitter, the industrial implications of an ever-increasing workload on reporters need to be addressed along with the ethical & professional implications.

Updating guidelines & editorial codes in response to the Social Media phenomenon is a good idea. Writing restrictive, anti-free speech codes – like the one the Australian Financial Review recently instituted, which prevents journalists from tweeting professionally - is not. But the AFR isn’t alone in its controlling approach.

The Washington Post also sought to tighten the reins on its reporters and editors, banning all commentary on Twitter that could be construed as opinion. Before he was gagged and issued a public mea culpa, one of the paper’s managing editors, Raju Narisetti, tweeted:

“For flagbearers of free speech, some newsroom execs have the weirdest double standards when it comes to censoring personal views.”

The constant framing of Social Media & the Future of Journalism debates through dystopian & utopian lenses conjures conflict, rather than progress. It’s time to move on & make the news…new.

Is social media the death or salvation of professional journalism? It’s neither – but it IS part of the revolutionary armoury in the struggle to reinvent journalism. And engagement is the heroine of the revolution    [read more]

This is part 2 of a speech I gave to Media 140 Sydney on Nov 5th. Read part 1 here

Let’s look more closely @ Twitter. It’s the fastest growing communications platform in the world. Last week, The Guardian reported that it was expected to reach 25 million users by year’s end and one of the site’s prolific tweeters reported this week that Twitter management had revealed there were 45 million unique visitors to Twitter during June – coinciding with the Iran Uprising. These are the sorts of numbers which prompted one of the most popular tweeters, Stephen Fry, to ask recently: is Twitter the new fifth estate?


The Guardian also reported last week that a leaked document from within Twitter indicated the company hoped to hit a billion users by 2013…at which point they’d consider the platform to be ‘the pulse of the planet’. Even with the capacity for penetrative mobile phone-driven tweeting, chances are it will be, at best, the pulse of the technologically privileged in developed countries, but that’s nothing to be sniffed at by journalists or traditional media outlets.

In preparing for this presentation, I considered giving a talk based solely on my recent research into Twitter & journalism - the academic’s approach. But while organising this conference, engaging in online debates & participating in mainstream media interviews about this event, I became increasingly frustrated with the level of ignorance & poor research that accompanied cynical journalists’ lines of questioning. I was asked more than once: “How could you possibly have a meaningful exchange in 140 characters on Twitter?” And I’d politely answer: It’s not limited to 140 characters…each tweet is measured that way, but just like a real conversation, it can go back and forth with multiple questions and answers of that length.

I lost count of the number of times this statement masquerading as a question was put to me: “Isn’t Twitter just a platform for narcissism & banality?” No, it’s certainly not.

And if one more journalist says to me “But Twitter isn’t journalism!” I may be tempted to stab myself in the eye with a fork. It'd be less painful. Let’s get this straight at the outset: of course it’s not journalism…it’s a publication platform, but a journalist who tweets live from the scene of an event is surely doing journalism…and one who finds & interviews a source using Twitter, or crowd-sources case studies via the medium, is certainly reporting. And what is it with the “You can’t say anything meaningful in 140 characters” line?

Isn’t writing a headline – usually much shorter than 140 characters – a powerful journalistic act? Is Haiku, poetry? If 17 syllables can be poetic, why can’t 140 characters be journalistic? Twitter could be journalism’s Haiku

And remember, a world religion was built on this sentence: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” That’s how the Bible, the best selling book of all time, begins…powerfully, succinctly, in 55 characters. Yes, God would make an excellent tweeter.

But – to come directly to the question posed by this panel’s theme – no, Twitter is not journalism’s saviour. But neither is it journalism’s Satan. However, the language used to bag Twitter by some resistors & detractors is almost apocalyptic. The subtext is: the interweb is evil!

The (otherwise) brilliant Sydney Morning Herald Chief Correspondent, Paul McGeough, whose work I admire immensely, pursued this line at an ANU conference on war & new media at which we both spoke last month. He told the audience – physical and online: “Remember all the talk of how the internet would democratise news & information…I don’t buy it. The reverse is true. It’s a tool for ignorance, for robbing society of valuable pillars of democracy…”

He went on to say that while he’d opened a Twitter account, he hadn’t uttered a single tweet…he felt he couldn’t say anything of value in 140 characters. And, tellingly, he said he didn’t need Twitter because he had ample platforms…radio, TV, newsprint…the Herald’s website. That was a point which resonated with those following the conference on Twitter…their platform didn’t matter. Why should the only valid platforms be the ones controlled by journalists, they asked? But Paul did confess he was an “Old Fart”. I was keen to extend the conversation and invited Paul to speak on this panel…unfortunately, though, he is on assignment…but he wishes us well in these debates. Maybe he’ll watch the coverage unfold on Twitter?

Despite my disagreement with Paul’s views about Twitter, he had at least made an effort to open an account, and acknowledged the value in journalists' monitoring what goes on in the space. Many of the journalists who’ve interviewed me about Twitter & journalism seem to feel entitled to draw conclusions based on the most random and shallow research…and the biggest detractors admit they’ve never used Twitter. To me, that’s not good journalism. And it’s certainly not good research.

So, yes, I’m a fan of what Twitter offers, but I don’t suggest it will displace traditional media…nor is it a replacement for long-form investigative reporting or features – rather, it’s an adjunct to it; it can be an enhancement and it has the potential to amplify such work through mass-distribution to new audiences.

After surveying 25 tweeting journalists this year, and devoting many hours to active research as a tweeter, I concluded that it is one of the new essential tools in a journo’s kitbag: as a platform to aid research; report breaking the news; distribute stories & engage with audiences. To some, Twitter is like a favourite journos’ watering hole – a ‘public’ pub-debriefing zone. To others’, it’s a public notepad - which exposes the practices & processes of journalism to audiences, enhancing the craft’s transparency - and a live contact book rolled into one. I therefore believe journalists need to be space-invaders in the Twittersphere.

As one of my interviewees said “Journos need to be everywhere where info is being traded and news and ideas are being exchanged” (@jonancer)

Journalism is a conversation and, believe it or not (crusty curmudgeons in the back row) intelligent informed conversation IS happening on Twitter – between journalists; between journalists; experts & sources; between journalists and their audiences. While using Twitter to circumvent spin & identify angles & contacts outside the pack – or at least in contest with the press release - Journalists are making profitable connections with people they may otherwise never have encountered – across cultural barriers & national borders. They’re broadening their horizons….140 characters at a time.    [read more]

This is part 1 of a speech I gave @ the Media 140 conference "The Future of Journalism in the Social Media Age"* held in Sydney this week.

The Fall of Rome is a rich metaphor tapped recently by Mark Scott to powerfully evoke images of the collapse of traditional media – especially anachronistic print barons like Rupert Murdoch.

What worries me, beyond the inevitable end of the traditional print model of journalism (at least in developed Western democracies) is the Nero-like behaviour of some of the most respected journalists and editors in the so-called ‘legacy media’ - here & abroad…there is much fiddling while Rome burns. And part of the problem, to further mix my Roman history metaphors, is the failure of some media outlets & journalists to lend the masses their ears.



Within some journalistic circles, there is a continuing arrogance towards media consumers and users – ‘the people formerly known as the audience’, to quote NYU Professor, Jay Rosen (who delivered a keynote address @ the conference). This arrogance is well demonstrated by the sneering derision & cynicism directed towards the phenomenally popular micro-blogging platform Twitter (& those who tweet) by the defenders of old, unsustainable models of publication & an inflexible attitude towards definitions of journalism.

To begin to talk about the future of journalism we must start by agreeing that the struggle should not be focussed on saving print…nor does it simply revolve around identifying alternative business models. Those who say the concurrent crises confronting journalism are ONLY technological and economic are kidding themselves. There is also the loss of public trust in mainstream journalism – fuelled by tabloidization: the product of a decline which reflects the misidentification of the need for engagement with the need for sensationalism. It’s a loss of faith magnified within online communities where mainstream media are often viewed cynically as bent on controlling an agenda skewed in favour of the powerful, or vested corporate interests. Such distrust escalated in the face of the sloppy journalism, bordering on propaganda, that accompanied the Weapons of Mass Destruction Debate - to name but one example.

In the Social Media Age, it may be true that anyone can call themselves a journalist if they have the skills to gather, synthesise, analyse & distribute information with a captivating narrative. But it is also true that pro- journalists have never had their professional practice so closely scrutinised – there are millions of online fact-checkers, bias police and critics. And credibility within online communities, built on active engagement, will be crucial to the sustainability of any professional journalism model into the future.

So, I argue that the only struggle critical to the Future of Journalism is one designed to ensure the continuation of the core of our professional practice: shining a light in dark places; speaking truth to power & doing so without fear or favour, but with a commitment to accuracy, truth & fairness.

Of course, in order to do that, we need to identify sustainable funding models – opinion is cheap, but quality reporting costs money – and sustainable new audiences, in new spaces, for our work.

And in considering how we should achieve that, we need to accept that journalism is not simply narrowly defined as news reporting and be prepared to part with that increasingly unworkable & misunderstood sacred cow of 19th Century Western models of journalism: objectivity. Social media platforms like Twitter, Youtube & Facebook, are changing the way we do journalism and affecting our professional & ethical constructs in the process, while allowing the people who sustain us – our increasingly interactive audiences – greater access to us and more power to independently set news agendas and frame news values.

All of this makes for very challenging times for professional journalists & it’s tempting to take up arms & dig in. There are livelihoods at stake, not just empires, traditions & ideals, of course. But it’s vital to accept that this is a revolution, not a war. A time for transformation, revitalisation…reinvention.

Continuation of the sort of mindset that replicates a form of trench warfare where the Imperialist generals entrench us in rotting surrounds & force us into futile, deadly battles will just lead to body piles in journalistic No Man’s Land.

The alternative – a revolutionary mindset - involves a passionate embrace of change –change for good. Change for a new media world order. A world where information gathering and distribution is more equitable & representative. We don’t embark on such a campaign uncritically, of course - we must be aware of the pitfalls. But neither can we be hamstrung by fear or reluctance; intransigence or arrogance. Yes, some battles will be lost and the transition may involve bloodshed but the end result doesn’t have to be the displacement of our core value as journalists AND citizens. And, in the Social Media Age, the nexus between the two is critical.

Debates about the Future of Journalism in Australia have crossed over onto Twitter in recent months. On this very newsworthy new, news-medium, journalists are openly discussing ethics & professional practice – both as they apply to traditional media and social media – with other users. They’re crowd-sourcing solutions to the dilemmas posed, by constructively & profitably reaching across the walls of their own media organisations - to colleagues in other camps, freelance journalists, Citizen Journalists, bloggers, academics and active citizens of all persuasions.

This vibrant forum has emerged on the back of what I identified in April as a veritable explosion of Australian journalists in the Twitterverse. And as Twitter has become a zone for publishing breaking news & aiding reporting, it’s also become a hot news item…indeed in the eight months since I began formally researching Twitter & journalism, it’s gone from a news curiosity to a virtual media cliché.

*I was the Editorial Director of Media 140 Sydney    [read more]

This is the fourth instalment in a continuing J-Scribe series on my problematic pregnancy. See Reborn Part 1, Reborn Part 2 & Reborn Part 3.

Here I sit, on the eve of Bambina’s birth, contemplating the roller-coaster journey of this pregnancy while remembering babies lost.

For such a long time I didn’t dare believe I’d make it to the end of this pregnancy with a living, dancing baby within, ready to face the world. And yet here I am.

In act of self-preservation, I’d corked my excitement. But it was unleashed during the baby shower thrown by my sister and best friend in early June. Surrounded by fabulous women from all the stages – literal and figurative - of my life, I was reminded of both how blessed I was in friendship, and how precious this life inside of me was to so many others. It was such a time of celebration and promise.

A month later, when I reached the 30 week-mark, my obstetrician exhaled with the news “Well, this is an achievement. If she’s born now, it will be OK. We can save her” and I finally believed Bambina was going to make it!

But each time her heartbeat was checked with a stethoscope, or the ultrasound operator ran that cold implement over my belly, I still held my breath until signs of life were detected. Eventually, excited anticipation supplanted apprehension ahead of these regular visits. And bonding with Bambina began in earnest.

But the roller-coaster ride continued…



23/7/09

Dear all,

Well, the countdown has officially begun! Only 3-4 weeks to go now until Bambina’s first birth-day.

And the last stretch of the rollercoaster is proving to be just as ‘entertaining’ as the rest of the ride. I’m now being treated for a suspected case of Swine Flu (which has posed a deadly threat to pregnant women & the unborn despite its relatively benign impact on the bulk of the population). But after several days of lingering between bed & couch, I seem to be on the improve – which is a big relief!

Last week I was battling a badly infected knee – sustained during a nasty fall en route to my last pre-maternity-leave work gig – a televised debate on the latest call to ban the burka in Australia staged at ANU. Bambina made her TV debut while Mummy limped to the podium on her bloody knee!

And it was a sinus infection the week before that…

So, I’m a walking medication cocktail – and a little battle-scarred - but otherwise well. And, more importantly, Bambina continues to thrive.

Many days I still wonder if she’s real – then she dances, kicks & squirms to remind me that she’s no figment of my imagination.

One more round of tests at the Fetal Medicine Unit next week to check on her growth & determine any undiagnosed underlying problems before the final nesting phase begins in earnest. We’re still nowhere near ready for this baby girl to enter our lives - but she’ll be loved endlessly, no matter how disorganised her parents are!

Thanks, as always, for your ongoing care & well wishes…we’re looking forward to sharing the exciting, happy conclusion to this saga with you in a few short weeks! Meantime, please keep the prayers, offerings, thumb crossing/holding, love & cheer coming!

Lots of love

Julie, Tim & Bambina


As the weeks past, her tumbles and kicks became more frequent and fierce but I’ve only ever experienced them as comforting jabs of love… Even at 37 weeks pregnant - with seriously swollen ankles and feet, an aching back, a pummelled bladder and all the usual discomfort and restricted movement of the end stage of a pregnancy in a woman approaching 40 years old – I haven’t felt the slightest bit of resentment or antipathy towards Bambina. This maternal love thing is certainly powerful!

According to her final FMU scan at 36 weeks, her growth had slowed and her development had slid below average…but the specialist obstetrician in attendance declared the tiny fat rolls around her waist, which were evident on the big screen, a sign that she was just a small baby (as I was at birth), not an unhealthy nor under-nourished one.



Nevertheless, I decided to have the amniocentesis which I’d deferred in the second trimester due to the heightened miscarriage risk. I wanted to be prepared if the lingering concerns about genetics manifested at birth.

14/8/09

Dear family & friends,

Welcome to the last Bambina update this side of the womb.

It's been a long, and at times difficult, journey but we're thrilled to reveal that Bambina is finally about to greet the world!

I go into hospital to be induced or have a Caesarean on Monday, August 17th. She's 38 weeks which means she'll be born two weeks ahead of her due date but this doesn't pose a health/development risk and our obstetrician is keen to see her on the outside as soon as possible given her difficult gestation. Not surprisingly, so are we!

And more good news to end the journey... A fortnight ago I had an amniocentesis to conclusively check for the genetic disorders, which earlier tests had indicated she was at very high risk of being born with. The results? Clear! She's a balanced chromosomal work of art :) This was an enormous relief & cause for celebration...joy, I'm sure you all share!

Meantime, I'm feet up on couch again as my blood pressure heads for the stars & my lower limbs threaten to inflate to the point where levitation actually appears feasible... But the good news is: this morning I wrote what I promised the recipients would be my last work-related email before the birth. Wish me luck with the workaholism withdrawal symptoms! :)

As I type, I'm watching the sun fade against the paddock backdrop as Wally(Scottish Highland Coo) balumbers towards me. Peace. Dawn. Exhale.

So, thanks once again for your prayers, incantations, offerings, hugs, love, finger-crossing, thumb-holding etc Please keep it up as the countdown begins in earnest.

Lots of love,

Julie, Tim & Bambina

So, the day we’ve waited so long for…the one we feared would never dawn…when we get to meet our baby for the first time is only a couple of days away. My partner is painting the nursery as I type (better late than never! :) and I’m about to pack a bag of baby clothes to take to hospital for the little girl who lives inside me, who’s preparing to move out. Beautiful surreality.

A kangaroo mother, recently spotted out my kitchen window, whose joey is preparing to leave the pouch.
   [read more]

When prominent Canberra journalist and newsreader, Virginia Haussegger used her Canberra Times column to call on the Australian Government to ban the burka, she unleashed yet another divisive debate about traditional Islamic dress which had the potential to further marginalise Muslim women.

While I know Virginia is not a not a racist, nor a Right Wing reactionary, her approach has allowed her arguments to be latched onto by those who are, and dismissed as xenophobic by her detractors. She called the burka ‘un-Australian' and framed her arguments through inflammatory language which unfortunately sounded like she’d lifted it straight from the Howard playbook for ‘dog-whistling’ - although that may not have been her intention.

A feminist case for the banning of the burka and the niqab (typically a black face cover which conceals all but the eyes) can certainly be made but Virginia's strategy of conflating a privileged, Western reading of feminism with nationalism was an ideologically flawed approach and rendered her arguments weak.



The problems with her case were most potently demonstrated during a packed public debate at the Australian National University (ANU) this week where feminist Muslim scholar and writer, Dr Shakira Hussein, joined me in challenging Virginia's views on this very difficult issue. The debate was made more interesting by the relationship between the three of us: we’re firm friends who respect each others’ professionalism and enjoy arguing about ideas.

During the debate, attended by nearly 400 people, Virginia reiterated her view that the burka & niqab need to be banned on feminist and cultural grounds because they’re ‘un-Australian’ instruments of oppression imposed by men on compliant women, while indicating support for the headscarf known as the hijab. I objected to her argument on the basis of the assault that such a call represents to freedom of expression and choice for women; the Orientalist, culturally imperialistic underpinnings of the call; and the implications of a prominent journalist making such a call with regard to the consequences for Muslim women generally.

Pic. Courtesy Canberra Times

Meanwhile, Shakira (whose PhD research took her to Pakistan to investigate encounters between Muslim & non-Muslim women) argued that you can’t impose liberation on women, and pointed to the disproportionate nature of the call given the minute number of Muslim women in Australia who wear the burka or niqab, and the fact that most who do wear it make an independent choice to do so. She also counted the cost for Muslim women of being forced into a defensive position on the issue by such calls.

But it was an audience member who laid the fatal intellectual blow. Young Muslim woman Durkhanai Ayubi travelled from Melbourne to attend the debate and she was first to ask a question from the crowd after it concluded. Addressing Virginia Haussegger directly, she asked: “Do you see the irony in claiming to uphold a woman’s freedom by denying her the option to wear the burka? I think calling for a ban on the burka in a democratic country is what’s ‘un-Australian’”

While many Muslim women had hoped unsettling community debates about traditional Islamic dress had run their course in Australia, the storm that erupted in the aftermath of this burka-ban call (which was triggered by Right-Wing French President Nicolas Sarkozy's call for a similar ban in France) indicated an ongoing appetite for public discussion on the issue and media coverage of it.

Pic. Courtesy Canberra Times

On ABC radio talkback and online, opinion ran at around 80% against the ban with many forceful and persuasive arguments being put via comments at Virginia's own blog. A Twitter poll (which accompanied the debate) produced similar results as did a fiery debate at the youth-oriented website Riotact. However, letters to the Canberra Times were roughly evenly divided between support for, and opposition to, the ban and the ANU audience (which was heavily female) appeared to reflect this split. Significantly, a Canberra Times journalist told me that almost all of the "loony" responses deemed unfit for publication were in support of the ban and many of those were perceived as racist.

In a post-September 11 environment where crime, terrorism, the Middle East & Islam have been frequently conflated, racists, xenophobes and Islamophobes have felt licensed to openly vilify members of Australia’s Muslim communities (as has occurred internationally). At times, this feeling has overflowed into hate crimes, largely targeting Muslim women, and it fuelled the tensions that led to the 2005 Cronulla Riots. This is one reason why extreme care needs to be taken in debating these issues and it further problematises Virginia's call for a ban on items of clothing associated with fundamentalist Islam.

You can listen to a podcast of the debate here. And it will be broadcast by ABC’s Fora program and by Sky News’ APAC channel at times yet to be scheduled.

Meantime, here’s an outline of my contribution to the debate which was moderated by international human rights law expert, the ANU's Professor Hilary Charlesworth.

* There are several accepted spellings for burka including burqua, burqa and burkha. For this post, I have adopted the spelling chosen by the Canberra Times & ANU to promote the debate.

Ban the Burka?

Julie Posetti - ANU/Canberra Times debate 15/7/09

I want to begin by publicly acknowledging my deep respect for Virginia Haussegger as a woman, a journalist and a feminist. I wholeheartedly support her democratic right to express forceful opinions and to do so without being abused by those who violently disagree.

BUT I’m afraid I can’t agree with Virginia on this issue – as a feminist, as a journalist, nor as a researcher of media coverage of Muslim women and its effects.

My objections to her call to ban the burka in Australia are essentially threefold:

1) While the principle of free speech which Australians hold dear supports Virginia’s right to make such a call, it would be undermined by a ban that so limits a woman’s self-expression and freedom of choice.

2) It smacks of Orientalism, cultural imperialism/Colonialism and, ironically, paternalism. Unfortunately, the language in which she’s couched her call also resonates with xenophobes & racists.

3) Activist journalism is a valid form of human rights advocacy but it must be cautiously practiced in the context of awareness of impacts on the subjects of such reportage. This is particularly important when the journalists involved are outsiders and the issue is highly sensitive - as it is in this case.

Freedom of Speech:

I am not a fan of the burka, nor what it symbolises in fundamentalist Islamic states. To misquote Steve Biko – the South African anti-apartheid hero who wrote while he was banned “I write what I like” – I wear what I like. And I believe the state has no place in a woman’s wardrobe – not as an enforcer of dress codes nor a prohibitor of them.

I’m about to bring a baby girl into the world & as much as I’d be disappointed if she chose to shroud her body in a burka, and I’d seek to persuade her from doing so in the Australian context, I’m pleased she’ll be born into a country where she could choose to do so and I’d defend her right to make such a choice.

I agree with Malalai Joya – the feminist Afghani politician & women’s activist whose bravely expressed views have exposed her to assassination attempts – who was quoted by Virginia today in defence of her case. Joya says “I hate that burka”. But she wears it by choice in Afghanistan for security reasons and she also says “…if, some women, they like it because of religious cause or as a part of culture, I respect them. This is a personal issue."

I also prefer Barack Obama to French President Nicolas Sarkozy whose own recent call for a Burka inspired Virginia’s. As Obama said in his landmark Cairo address: “It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practising religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear".

In addition to being an affront to Australian notions of freedom of expression and choice, and presenting a legal logistical nightmare in terms of legislating for and enforcing such a ban, in Australia banning the burka may also be unconstitutional, contravening section 116 of the Constitution which states:

"The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..."

Prof. Hilary Charlesworth will no doubt be better able to interpret the Constitution as it would apply to such a ban, but the evidence suggests that in Australia, the very small number of women who wear a burka, choose to do so independently as a matter of conscience reflective of religious values. To dismiss them as Virginia does as being “feeble women who are afraid of modernity... complicit in their own oppression” is patronising, elitist and has the effect of denying them a voice – the same right she believes the burka suppresses.

Cultural policing

While Virginia argues it’s about freedom, banning the burka would be an oppressive act designed to enforce Western perceptions of liberation reflective of cultural imperialism. The irony is that far from defending women’s rights and freedoms, it would effectively deny them, requiring reliance on masculinist, patriarchal systems of governance & law enforcement.

According to Virginia’s feminist perspective, the Burka is a dehumanising icon of gender oppression, keeping women compliant, silent & submissive.

But Said’s theory of Orientalism posits that Western media typically impose their own intellectual and cultural superiority through reportage of Islamic people, politics & issues, reflecting perspectives that regard the Muslim world and its inhabitants as backward, barbaric and outsiders to Western society.

Said’s theory can be seen to be at play in Virginia's call for a burka-ban.

In her Canberra Times piece titled “Ban Un-Australian Burka", she wrote: “Wearing the burka - or niqab - in Australia is an aggressive way of saying 'I will not integrate into your society, and I care nothing for the cultural mores and social traditions of this country'. Instead, the woman wearing it is demonstrating that she would rather submit to gender apartheid, than embrace the social norms of this place. The burka is an arrogant display of disrespect to Australia and the Australian way of life.”

While I know she is not a racist, nor a Right Wing reactionary, Virginia’s choice of highly emotive & inflammatory language which borrows from the Howard playbook has allowed her arguments to be dismissed as such by her detractors and latched onto by xenophobes.

While in the staunchly secular French Republic there have been as many calls from the Left for such a ban as from the Right (which is the spectrum from which Sarkozy’s pitch comes); in multicultural Australia, where the spirit of egalitarianism has encouraged religious and cultural pluralism, until now calls for such a ban have been the exclusive territory of Right-Wing commentators, racists and politicians like Rev Fred Nile, who called for a burka ban in 2002, saying it could be used to disguise bombs.

When his critics pointed out that the same effect could be achieved with an overcoat & scarf or a ski mask, ABC radio’s PM reported that Rev Nile dismissed this suggestion on the basis that in summer an overcoat would appear suspicious: “Which makes you wonder how Santa will go in his big red suit and beard, posing for photographs with his fans this Christmas”. (ABC Radio PM 21/11/02)

Federal Liberal politicians Bronwen Bishop & Sophie Panopoulos similarly called for a ban on veiling in public places in 2005 with Bishop comparing claims from Muslim women that some choose to cover as an expression of free choice, to distorted perceptions of freedom reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Bishop went on to imply that women who wear the hijab are unpatriotic non-conformists ‘… it is being used by the sort of people who want to overturn our values as an iconic emblem of defiance and a point of difference’

This language was echoed by Virginia who also wrote: “Australia must not allow that radical and overt tool of fundamentalism, the burka, to be worn here. It defies our cherished values of equality and freedom.” I find this to be a deeply ironic & incongruous argument – how do you enforce equality by denying a woman freedom of choice and freedom of expression?

Responding to Fred Nile’s Burka ban call, then NSW Premier Bob Carr warned: “Stereotypes are the first step in actual full-blooded racism.”(ABC TWT 22/11/02)

Virginia’s views – and particularly the manner in which they’ve been expressed via a conflation of nationalism & feminism - are both a difficult pill to swallow &, more seriously, potentially a recipe for the inflammation of xenophobia within the community.

The perpetuation of stereotypes such as the suggestion all women who wear the burka are concurrently oppressed & threatening, in combination with fear of difference, have exposed Muslim women to racist attacks in Australia. In the aftermath of Sept 11, and the Bali & London bombings, they were spat on, their veils were ripped off…they were verbally assaulted. Debates like this can make Muslim women feel at risk, rather than liberated. And they can actually put them at risk when they overflow into violence: in Germany earlier this month, a veiled Muslim woman was stabbed to death in the courtroom she was applying to for justice by the man she accused of racially vilifying her.

The effect of burka-ban in Australia would be to further marginalise an extreme minority – and for those few who may be forced to wear the burka by violent male oppressors, it will further isolate them. I’d rather see a woman at risk emerge from her home in a burka than feel, or be, compelled to stay indoors – out of sight and out of mind - because her government banned her from wearing one.

Finally, such burka-ban calls inevitably take the focus off more significant underlying issues such as violence against women - which is far from a Muslim-exclusive problem in this country – by effectively covering it up with the distracting issue of clothing.

Media Coverage

This call for a burka-ban came from a credible, respected journalist, so the effect of media coverage of such issues on Muslim women is particularly relevant.

In our age, Muslim women are both highly visible members of one of the most marginalised groups in Western society and the most vulnerable to vilification and media stereotyping.

Based on my research in this area over the past few years – which has involved both studying coverage & speaking to Muslim women about their experiences & perceptions of it - I’ve concluded that they are concurrently pigeon-holed as terrorist threats, victims of male oppression and sexualised, exotic ‘others’, who struggle to be heard beyond the veil as the news media overwhelmingly perpetuates ignorant, shallow misrepresentations of them. In the portrayal of Muslim women, attention is frequently focused on the way they dress with their clothing seen as a sort of shorthand symbol of their threatening, alien status

As MacDonald notes:

The image of the veil continues to exercise discursive power over perceptions of Islam and Muslim women. Expressions of surprise, even in the twenty-first century, that veiled Muslim women can appear as Olympic athletes, “suicide bombers,” feminists, politicians, musicians, or even comedians, underline the tenacity of beliefs that Islamic veiling is intrinsically incompatible with women’s agency in the construction of their identities. (MacDonald 2006: 19)

Muslim women are virtually invisible in mainstream news. And when they are reported they are almost exclusively cast as the outsider – alien to Australian culture and social experience with an almost inescapable requirement to speak, when they are asked, about veiling. Aly and Walker link the Australian media obsession with veiling to the discourses of national security and social cohesion: ‘Indeed, the veil has come to represent Islam itself and the “veiled threat” has become code for the wider threat of an Islamic presence in Australia drawing explicitly on fears that Australian cultural values might collapse’.

Most recently I interviewed & surveyed 18 Muslim women from diverse cultural & professional backgrounds (including a number of journalists) about their experiences of the media's reporting of Muslim women.

Seventeen out of the 18 participants in this research were scathing in their criticism of the mainstream news media’s reporting of Muslim women. They cited rampant stereotyping as the biggest problem, highlighting the clichéd representations of women as veiled; victims of misogyny and an oppressive religion; subject to polygamous marriages; uneducated; alien; sub-human; unassertive; foreign; fundamentalist; ‘un-Australian’; distant and unapproachable as significant cause for concern. The journalists among the participants also complained about rampant stereotyping and many respondents lamented the media’s conflation of culture and religion and the ‘reductionist’ approach to coverage, describing it variously as ‘racist’; ‘rubbish’; ‘opportunistic’; ‘negative’; ‘wilfully uninformed’; ‘stupid’ and ‘docile’. Another issue highlighted was the secondary effect of such coverage, described as a silencing impact, which caused Muslim women to feel bound to defend misogynistic men against negative reportage.

One respondent summed up the general feeling of participants:

“They (the media) have invented a stereotype of blind, obedient colourless women, covered from head to toe in grey, which has nothing to do with real life. They never represent the diversity of Muslim women – our origins, professions, education, opinions, or clothes. Our voices are never heard themselves, just people speaking on our behalf, often typifying us as victims of brutal men. If we don’t fit the stereotype (and nearly no-one does) then our views are dismissed as being atypical. The image it [the media] presents of Muslim women is just nothing like me or any of the Muslim women I know. It is a fantasy of Western ignorance, which is reinforced every time it is in the press.”

So, while I’m not opposed to activist journalism as a human rights weapon – which is how I believe Virginia intends her work in this area to be perceived – the impact of such media coverage on Muslim women must be considered – both in terms of the way it has the potential to fan xenophobia and, more subtly, through the impact on their identities and sense of belonging in the Australian community.

And this is not just true of Australian women: The act of Muslim women unveiling and conforming to Western models of post-feminist beauty was also manipulated by the media as a potent, Colonial symbol of ‘liberation’ and ‘rescue’ in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghan women have complained of Western media fixations on the burka, which were deployed to justify the invasion of Afghanistan & which had the effect in the aftermath of the war of overshadowing much more serious underlying issues.

Shahira Fahmy’s content analysis of the Associated Press photo archive covering the periods immediately before and after the ‘liberation’ of Kabul found that while only 1% of AP photographs showed women with hair and faces exposed, the Western media excessively focused on the rate of unveiling (through the pictures actually published) to the detriment of reportage on underlying problems surrounding women’s employment, education and abuse. (Fahmy 2004)



Myra MacDonald further argues that the Western media used women’s 'bowed and veiled' bodies to confirm the urgency of rescuing them from their fate - without historical enquiry into the reasons for women’s poverty and misery, or the role of Western powers in enabling these conditions to prevail (2006)

Finally, the media tends to speak on behalf of or at Muslim women, instead of with them and Virginia’s call for a ban in the absence of any interactions with burka-clad women in Australia, beyond one sighting in a shopping mall, falls into this trap.

The way forward in this debate is to build opportunities for dialogue between progressive feminist Muslims and non-Muslims, and those who veil with the burka and niqab. We need to pave the way for self-empowerment and engagement, not blow up such routes through divisive and counter-productive calls for bans on burkas and niqabs which, to many Muslim women, feel just as oppressive as the shrouds themselves.

Note: for an example of effective and ethical media coverage of this issue see this report on ABC’s Stateline in response to the initial public reaction to Virginia Haussegger’s column. See also Virginia's recent 730 Report story on her travels in Afghanistan    [read more]