Media brandings, spin, propaganda & other mischief

So this post is re-visiting the US Guantanamo debate, which is very complex but important insofar as it is a robust examination of detention conditions, torture and human rights - and, moreover, it is an examination that is being openly conducted by the public (& world media), based on the highest expectations of that public about democratic standards, humaneness and judicial independence. However, the focus on Guantanamo Bay conditions in this post, is merely to illustrate their parallel to the human rights conditions for detainees in Australia, and, in other places of custody. 

Australia has three main media monopolies, one of which is so powerful & pervasive that it, effectively, rules the governments around the world. Hence, these vast, modern day authoritarian institutions, dictate a type of censorship by trivia that gags all reasonable and balanced discussions of human rights in Australia. So, the Guantanamo Bay discourse on torture lends vital analysis that just isn't available here for discussion by any columnists and reporters willing and brave enough to talk about the 't' word, and all aspects of post-'t' word-life. (Even on the rare occasion that the 't' word- torture - is proven in Australian courts, it almost invariably is never mentioned as such, by journalists - who usually opt for the warmer, fuzzier & heavily-spun, govt-pleasing -term, 'mistreatment'.) 

It is important to note, that while there are vast numbers of Aussie reporters who are really more like spin doctors, there are some fantastic mainstream journalists around. If Australia defends its media industry and improves workplace conditions and the diversity of media ownership, these journos may stand a fighting chance of doing a reasonable job that holds the powerful to account & protects the public - without bias.

The intent behind the collaborative approach to stigmatizing suspects/accused/detainees, is inseparable from the conditions they experience afterwards - whether guilty, verballed or innocent. There is a flow-on effect for friends and relatives of accused persons. Generally, the law officers involved in the initial investigation relating to a named suspect, will create the building blocks of discrimination upon which, that stigmatization & 'public fear' can develop. This is evident in their media statements and the strategies behind their timing and content. The same approach is applied by all government agencies, and as such, it is applied to suspects of all varieties - not just those of the ilk that have ended up in GTMO. 

At a local micro-level, this practice is able to be seen in the work of some amazingly ethically-flexible journalists, who I term the Three Stooges. For the salary of a check-out operator, these 3 persons guarantee the success of corrupt police verbals, sure thing, every time - usually accompanied by cover-page placement, huge photos of the faces of the accused, and defamatory story titles that run prominently and in large font. If those accused don't end up convicted, then that fuels further public sensationalism & shaming of honest justice employees.

Interestingly, despite what the public knows about private military contractors, like Blackwater, involved in the seizure of individuals later sent to GTMO - namely, that the apprehension was ad hoc and run by commission per person (more suspects = more $); and, despite most of those detainees being found innocent and repatriated; any contact with that highly publicized controversial environment taints their public image and their security profile, and those of their relatives and friends. This is also true for detainees and accused persons from other types of security and custodial environments, as well. This tainting effects the employment prospects, potential stability of accommodation, and the financial security of an accused individual, and his/her friends, relatives and dependants. 

'Thirty-four of our respondents said they were unemployed...' (Fletcher & Stover, 2009, The Guantanamo Effect, p.104).  Six had jobs, one reported optimism about job prospects, some were in training. Seven reported unsuccessful efforts to get a job. One reported that employers noticed a three-year gap & their interest waned when he divulged he had been held in custody. 

The stigma of Guantanamo interfered with the ability of several Afghan former detainees to regain their former positions. Those who were government employees found they could not reclaim their jobs. "The government authorities think we are terrorists," said one respondent. "I want my job back," exclaimed another. "I want my rights like the salaries I was supposed to receive..." [...] Another respondent, a highly educated man, expressed frustration that his time in Guantanamo indelibly marred his reputation and career. He was a a practicing physician, who had operated a clinic before his arrest. Now he had to "start again from a drugstore so that people can trust me." (Fletcher & Stover, 2009, pp.104-105)

Additionally, former detainees complained about the effects of the bad detention conditions & torture-related injuries on their health and mental wellbeing, which were averse to them holding down permanent employment or operating at the same capacity that they had, before they were allegedly wrongly seized and renditioned (Fletcher & Stover, 2009, p.105-106). An Australian former GTMO detainee, David Hicks, described in his biography, post-torture "baggage" that was virtually a "full-time job" to cope with. Said baggage included: physical damage to teeth, bones, & spine and kidney function, and severe, difficult to manage, post-trauma (PTSD) and anxiety (Hicks, My Journey, pp.404-405). However, several detainees did not even survive the mental anguish of their (likely - no one will ever know) wrongful GTMO imprisonment, & there is quite a bit of information about the facility's deaths in custody, which I'll discuss at some later point. As mentioned - there are some close parallels to other countries' detention regimes.  

{Interestingly, last year the US prison system trialled wall-mounted heart rate and vital signs sensors, to reduce their rate of deaths in prison custody. The sensor was found to be 86% accurate (Rutkin, New Scientist, May 31, 2014, p22). Nonetheless, in most custodial death inquests data shows staff fail, or, in court they claim to have failed, to monitor the equipment provided to reduce prison deaths. So the helpfulness of such a device hinges on the attitudes and willingness of custodial staff to reduce harm. Regularly, those witness claims are debunked by evidence (or general lack thereof), or investigations that fail to call key witnesses or gather appropriate evidence - with no penalties or systemic & internal pressure for reform.}

The Australian media is affluent and powerful and has the resources to scrutinize the credibility of government spin about a suspect (but seldom does). Keep in mind, however, that mostly, Australia's journalists are so poorly treated and overworked that realistically they have no capacity to function in a legally or ethically defensible manner. Such poor OHS conditions further strengthen govt 'propaganda', which can stay unchallenged & unquestioned for decades - sometimes, forever. 

Now I know those of my readers who are big-media-naysayers will be thinking that 'propaganda' seems like a lofty, grandiose, inaccessible term - 'spin' is used more frequently. But, 'spin' doesn't really convey the life-shattering impact of untruths when they're propelled from official mouths for the purposes of gaining political mileage. {If you need it explained in accessible terms MSM ppl, then read Richard Flanagan.} 'Propaganda'/'spin' can take the micro-form of an unofficial comment from a detective, speaking out of turn to a favoured police-rounds-reporter to bias a court; or, at the other end of the scale, it can take the form of powerful official policies and statements providing strategic misinformation/disinformation. Either way, the negative impact of this is not just on one individual scapegoat - some poor sucker who has his/her life turned upside down - the considerably more serious and insidious impact, is on the public & the safeguards we have, to ensure just outcomes & an independent judiciary. 

Government resistance to accurate truths empowering media consumers and the public, can be seen in the unduly harsh punishments and witchhunts aimed at whistleblowers. One of the methods commonly used to gag whistleblowers, is detention. Whistleblower legislation in Australia, jails journalists for equal/longer than classified government whistleblowers - presenting another example of a govt agenda that manipulates the type of information made available to the public. 

Since 'Cablegate' 'high-profile' mainstream journalists are targeted by defamation, intimidation & jail, whereas previously, that flak had been mostly reserved for independent journalists, who had refused to tow the government propaganda line. When freelance journalist, Avon Lovell, unearthed tax documents proving numerous prostitutes were paying money to the state's chief detective - presumably as part of a protection racket - those documents were subsequently supplied by a journalist at The West Australian, to the local police. The police protected the corrupt police chief, but facilitated the jailing of Lovell, by colleagues from the Australian Federal Police. Eventually, he was released and compensated (Litany of Lies, 2011). He is not the only journo to be jailed in Australia, and history proves that scrutinizing corrupt police is yet another OHS hazard for media.

Negative, defamatory or prejudicial media depictions create a reactionary response. The resultant 'fear of crime', in turn, creates a public need that has to be addressed, politically, and then, politicians benefit from this media circus by appearing to be 'tough on crime' - all of which, probably, did not exist in the first place, or was exaggerated to sell news. Each generation of media consumers has its bad guys, or a small range of stereotyped 'baddies'. To make it easier for readers to recognize - this type of everyday, common 'propaganda' will use sexy, marketable catch phrases that are chronically simplified, shameful or fear inducing, and they are streamlined to create a permanent public 'branding' of an individual, minority or group. 

As the dollar is king in the media market, the best way to stop unethical, corrupt media practices that hurt and divide the community, is simply by not buying or consuming news from a media outlet that you think is manipulating their content, being racist, or not treating people fairly. People who are labelled as 'bad guys' and suspects in the news - in fact, all people named in news, have a legal right to comment in that story - so, if you see a story that trash talks someone, & shows their photo, or says they're bad people, etc, etc, but then does NOT allow them to have a say, or defend themselves, then readers can be pretty sure that they're reading 'spin', or 'propaganda'.  ###

Reconciliation week: Echoes of Stolen Generations

Having researched contemporary and past historic cases of unlawful child removal by the government - past and present, one of the things that remains consistent in that data, is the complete lack of transparency of individual workers, who can act unlawfully, with total impunity.

DCP's claims of 'neglect' can be flexuously wielded as means of racial dominance, in what is the equivalent of authoritarian napalm.

Racism is an ugly, vile thing to witness and it is the very last thing that should ever slip through, in shortfalls in government accountability measures.

Historically, In Australia, documents were systematically destroyed to protect the criminal and sadistic actions of government workers. This occurred even though paedophiles were knowingly embedded within government departments like the Department of Child Welfare. Thus, this renders even the non-offending executives of DCW , accomplices via complicity & inaction.

Through researching cases from more recent times, I have been privy to the bureaucratic side-stepping of media enquiries relating to the placement of ATSI children with non-indigenous carers - which is, contrary to the law.

Pursuant to the Stolen Generations and Forgotten Australians eras, strict policy dictates that Aboriginal children must be placed with Indigenous carers, if they must be removed from their families.

In the case that no Indigenous carers are available then equally strict protocols require the children to be educated and socialized in relation to their heritage.

Despite easily demonstrated cases of the Department of Children Protection (a tragically ironic title, all things considered) not complying with its own policy in this regard, and, in doing so causing evident physical suffering in children subsequently neglected in care - DCP point-blank refuses to account for their non-adherence to the laws that govern their own actions.

Repeatedly in WA a lack of internal and independent disciplinary measures facilitate human rights abuses against black minorities. There is no pressure for reform from Australia's mainstream media, and so no reform results and people continue to suffer.

This authoritarian response (in the clip below) to Indigenous protest on the national day of reconciliation with Indigenous people, clearly demonstrates the unique political dichotomy that exists here between the public, and unaccountable government departments.

One of the few constitutional rights Australians do have is a right to protest.

The police in this You Tube clip and possibly those who ordered them to storm in and arrest mothers and grandmothers, are perhaps not so aware of Australia's constitution.

Is it an unreasonable expectation on the part of the voting public, that people employed to work in government positions actually know the laws and policies that they are meant to abide by? Or that they are familiar with those rules they're meant to use to govern? They should at least know what is private and public property, shouldn't they?

Just as usual, really excellent & challenging independent journalism work here from GLW & Alex Bainbridge.

##NB In Australia, 'sorry' not only speaks of reconciliation (that is the context it was used in, when the National Apology to the Stolen Generations occurred) 'sorry', also relates to sadness, loss and grieving. It's a term that is used among Aboriginal First Nation Peoples here.