On the quality of Australian and International media

When someone puts their soul on a plate for you, listen deeply to them if you want them to stay. When they do so, you can usually tell. If they do so, don't exploit them, engage and collaborate with them in trying to help further and develop their line of inquiry. The veterans of Australian media should heed this message closely, because its not only the data, but also your messaging that determines the level and the kind of engagement the public in general and the next generation in particular wish to have with society.

Those who grew up with the internet appear to be more likely to imprint the essence of what they interpret from the nodes of information they observe and evaluate them for coherence with existing information and its correspondence with foundational credences (whether metaphysical like views on ethics, politics and aesthetics, or scientific like new, contradicting and corroborating data points that build on the existing frameworks in their mind-world).

Those who did not grow up with the internet appear be more likely to be connected to their founding influences (such as specific expressions in scriptures and traditional belief systems, their idea of individuals who inspired, helped or hurt them earlier in life or recently).   

Of course with time, generations develop new concepts and ways of categorising their experiences that corroborate or contradict existing nodes of information in their mind-world, but they usually build on traditions and concepts built by preceding generations. If you aggressively dismiss the ideas someone express without giving any credit to the idea, attempting to identify a root-cause, or commencing a critique with a personal attack you are deeming that persons worldview as wholly illegitimate, often leading to disengagement. Veterans in the media should put a bit more effort in noticing who has disengaged and consider why.

It also seems that Australian society, across the political spectrum and age groups can read through motivated reasoning and establish intentions via tone and body language, so if you're speaking on behalf of corporate donors and interests - know that it becomes more obvious with each day because Australians are more politically informed than ever before and are excellent at trajectorising political interests from principles and policy positions.

Zoomers seem to be developing an entirely new language about social phenomena and behaviours and via the evolution of memes which even I as a millennial no longer understand, and I too grew up with the internet. The curations with the algorithm and personal preferences on social media as well as between the kinds of content and policies of platforms also influence this greatly, resulting in a form of hyper-fragmentation of cultures and the loneliness epidemic we hear so much about, and while for some this is actually a positive development as it enables hyper-curation for the hyper-connected, it reinforces the critical and unifying role of public broadcasters such as the ABC, SBS and NITV. 

One thing the Zoomers probably don't know about our political system, is that often policies take a form of doublespeak which is linked to the Judaeo-Christian foundations of our political system that we call 'Western Liberal Democracy' (which appears to be being suppressed by plutocratic influence). Think Stage 3 tax cuts - its not only about the money and who it goes to, its also about the fact that it was an election promise, and whether and when it is appropriate for the government to break promises. Another example is the Housing Crisis - its not only about how we should deal with it (rent and mortgage freeze vs public, social and affordable housing vs government built vs public-private-partnership vs privately built fund), but also how our entire economy should look like. When Members of Parliament speak in question time, they frequently and freely flow between both languages and procedural performativity (which is a third language), so it can be quite hard to tell what they may be talking about in either one of them, and what they may actually mean. 

You can find out more about the transposition of theology into politics and politics into economics in Carl Schmitt's ideas on Political Theology. This is something every person interested in Federalism and the political process of Western Liberal Democracies should read about. Beyond protecting the rights of the same minority groups who were targeted by the Nazis, while preventing the tyranny of the minority or the majority, one benefit of our political systems is that the expression of a valid, sound and reasonable principle can be democratically tested and adapted for differences by establishing a mandate within a country, and within countries that share the same system, enabling iterative refinement and application (though partisanship, corporate state capture and plutocracisation have corrupted this process). 

When elements of the media choose to treat someone who is offering ideas and criticisms as a target rather than an asset, especially without showing any meaningful engagement with those ideas, or their own attempts to develop them, rather than extinguishing those ideas - they send them into spaces that will only take longer for such ideas to resurface (such as partisan politics, grassroots movements and underground movements). This is one negative effect that corporate state capture and plutocracisation has on our political system, and why its so critical for our political process to be publicly funded, instead of being funded by corporate donations and lobbyists. If money talks, people don't have a voice. If its a contest of ideas, the one with the corporate donors behind it will be purchased and most likely win, corrupting the people's will and the mandate.   

If Australia wants unity, a quick way to achieve it is to bring individuals from across the political, ideological and philosophical, educational and lived and professional experience spectra into your respective echo chambers (give credit where its due and cross-promote each other even if you oppose each other). Some non-public media have already started doing these things this year, which is nice to see (such as with Serious Danger and Friendlyjordies). The next level would be for Ministers of Parliament, battlers, bureaucrats, academic experts, audiences and members of the public with relevant experiences and diverse backgrounds, to be prepared to identify root causes of issues, advance their vision of policy ideas and ideals and highlight relevant considerations such as the cases, experiences and principles they draw on live on air. It is a pleasure to see that Q&A on ABC has already been doing this, even though none of the questions I've submitted this or last year have been answered. Hiding behind partisan politics only slows our ability to deal with collective action problems. It is also reasonable to expect that different broadcasters and platforms would have differing approaches to the level of civility expected from participants considering the many dire collective action problems that we are facing at once. 

International media outlets (social and traditional), and especially the major ones would benefit the planet more if they took a break from the rigid adherence to their editorial positions, and also invite world leaders (political, economic, scientific, philosophical, religious), grassroots leaders (of movements, campaigns and causes), and even randomly selected members of the global public to elevate the level of global problem solving with a similar approach to how I've tried to detail in the preceding paragraph.

I've put my soul on a plate for anyone to see here because I want to bring Australia and the planet closer to the next step of a better world, which seems to be moving further away with each day. We don't all have the same ideal worlds, but we all share similar paths to them. That is why Federations are good, and Confederacies may be even better. If you see any parts of this effort as trying to get closer to your ideal world, share it with someone, put your feedback into the feedback form. I've received no contact, feedback or suggestions in this form since publishing this website in February this year, and yet everyone seems to want me to pay some price for having opinions, and an even bigger price for expressing them, and an even bigger price if I refuse to be suppressed by fear or coercion. I am one person with one brain, and I respect people's experiences (whatever they may be) and good reasons, even if we disagree on many other things.