The first one I can understand, and that is that they only report on details of a small minority of things which the police deal with each day. They probably have some very good reasons for not reporting on a lot of their activities, and I fully accept that, none-the-less, it still annoys me that a lot of newsworthy stories never see the light of day as a result.
The second one I really can’t get my head around, and that is the general ignoring of regional areas. With occasional exceptions, New South Wales police media in particular, tend to ignore stories outside of metropolitan and coastal areas, and the few areas in between such as the highways. There’s a great example this week.
Here in Deniliquin there was a home invasion on Monday. The local police media rep has obviously talked to the local media about it as the local radio news had the details this morning, so I’d expect the next edition of the local paper on Friday to also have the details, however the main New South Wales Police Media office in Sydney has not said a word about it. It’s funny in a way that if there was a home invasion in Sydney, it would be front page news and be leading TV and radio news bulletins all day, but a home invasion out here in Deniliquin, whilst it should receive some coverage in national news bulletins, has received no coverage outside of the local area due to the fact that the Police Media unit in Sydney couldn’t be bothered to report the story.
It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last, but it bothers me that the police media unit shows such little regard for the regional areas. I don’t understand why they don’t seem to care about areas outside the urban fringe, and I can’t wrap my head around it no matter what angle I attack it from. Perhaps they suffer from the same problem which many regional people see in the New South Wales government, that in many cases, the government treats areas outside Sydney as being second-class citizens.
Samuel
March 9th, 2011 at 11:00pm
This is quite peculiar. Nine Melbourne have been found to have breached the electoral advertising blackout in the leadup to last year’s Victorian state election, however the Australian Communications and Media Authority has not mentioned anywhere in its findings which ad it was or which party or candidate’s ad it was which aired.
The story, according to ACMA’s press release, is that during Getaway on the Thursday before the election, an electoral advertisement aired due to an error in Nine’s traffic scheduling which was in the process of being moved to Sydney at the time. ACMA (as seems to be their usual action) have not done anything about except acknowledge that it happened as, according to them, “there are no previously recorded breaches of this licence condition by a Nine Network licensee” and ACMA will simply just monitor them for future breaches.
The identity of the person or group who made the complain to ACMA is unknown as ACMA have not published this detail, however the complainant does make a good point, which is published in ACMA’s investigation report:
The airing of the advertisement gives […] a clear advantage over all other parties into a prime time viewing audience across the whole of Victoria.
With such a close election result 45 seats to 43 and with many thousands of voters making up their mind during the blackout period, airing such advertisement may have influenced the result in one or more seats and potentially impact on whom was ultimately elected to govern Victoria for the next four year[s].
This is an advantage that cannot be undone or matched.
(edits to this quote were made by ACMA in their published report)
With the exception of the claim that the ad aired all over Victoria (no such claim has been made against Nine’s regional affiliate WIN and it is therefore safe to assume that the ad only aired in Melbourne), the point is correct, the airing of this ad may have influenced votes in key seats. The question is though, for whom was the ad spruiking?
While the advantage gained via the airing of the ad should be irrelevant to the investigation of whether the ad aired, the information about whose ad it was, is information which should be made publicly available so that we, the people, can know what the likelihood is that the result of the election may have been different had the ad not aired, and the information may also be useful if such an infringement of the rules occurs again in the future, especially if the same person, party or group is advantaged in the future.
Personally I don’t care for the advertising blackout period, especially seeing as it only applies to broadcast media and not newspapers or the internet, but as long as the rules stands and it was broken, we should be told who was advantaged by the breaking of this rule. At the moment, it’s like having a person convicted of murdering someone after being hired by someone else to do it, without the name of the hirer being released.
I’ll be contacting ACMA about this matter.
Update 8:11am: ACMA have replied to say that they will have answers to my questions shortly. I’ll keep you posted. End Update
Update 1:30am Saturday: ACMA got back to me yesterday afternoon to confirm that the ad in question was for the Labor party, so on the bright side the ad wouldn’t have caused a different party to be in power, but it may have affected the outcome of a seat or two.
ACMA also confirmed that the complaint was about the ad airing in Melbourne, and not all of Victoria as stated by the unnamed complainant. They have not received any complaints about the ad airing outside of Melbourne, but also can not definitely state that it did not air…this is perfectly normal as ACMA can only act on complaints, however given that there has not been a complaint, it’s probably safe to assume that WIN did not air this ad.
ACMA dodged my question about whether, hypothetically speaking, a future similar breach in favour of the same party (bearing in mind that I did not know which party the ad was for when I asked the question) could provide grounds for investigating a potential intentional bias, but I can’t say that I blame them…a direct answer there could have very easily been taken out of context, and the answer to one of the other questions stated that the airing of this ad was a genuine mistake.
The full text of the questions and answers is below, and I thank ACMA for their prompt responses to my questions:
Q: Firstly, I can not find any reference in the press release or the published report as to whose political ad it was. This information seems to be relevant given the complainant’s statement that “airing such advertisement may have influenced the result in one or more seats and potentially impact on whom was ultimately elected to govern Victoria for the next four year[s]”. Does the ACMA know whose political ad it was which aired and, if so, is the ACMA able to release this information?
A: the relevant election advertisement was an ALP advertisement which was not broadcast through any action or fault of the ALP but through an error in GTV 9’s traffic system as stated on page 4 of Investigation Report Number 2526
Q: If not, why not?
A: (not provided, as irrelevant based on previous answer)
Q: If a complaint is made against GTV9 in the future about electoral advertising airing during a blackout period, and if the ad which airs is for the same party, group or candidate, will the ACMA potentially have grounds to investigate whether the airing of the ads shows an intentional bias?
A: as stated in the Media Release, the ACMA will monitor any future complaints to ensure compliance with the rules
Q: If so, and assuming that the name of the group/party/candidate responsible for the ad has not already been released by the ACMA by this time, will the ACMA then release this information?
A: (again, not provided, as the question is irrelevant after the last answer)
Q: The complainant’s statement in the investigation report mentions that the ad aired across all of Victoria, however only GTV9 is mentioned in the report, not their regional affiliate WIN Television. Is the ACMA in a position to confirm whether or not any complaints of a similar nature have been made against WIN Television and, if not, whether the ACMA can clarify that the offending advertisement only aired within the Melbourne broadcast area?
A: the ACMA did not receive any complaints about the broadcasting of this advertisement on Win Television Vic Pty Ltd (VTV)
the ACMA is not in a position to confirm whether this advertisement only aired within the Melbourne broadcast area – this is a matter you may wish to pursue with the broadcaster
End Update
Samuel
March 9th, 2011 at 10:11pm