This article was first published at The National Times

As our lives become increasingly saturated with technology, digital media and the internet, it’s no secret that our younger generations are spending less time in the great outdoors. Whether it’s hours spent in front of the TV, surfing the internet, playing on a games console or a combination of these, kids today seem far less inclined to enjoy the natural world than in previous generations.

While older generations have long bemoaned a decline in the time spent outside, there has been growing speculation that such a shift might also have negative health implications for those involved. According to Dr William Bird, health adviser to Natural England, a lack of exposure to nature has the potential to adversely affect the mental health of society’s youngest members.

But while Generations Y and Z are more likely to spend time playing video games than recreating the adventures of Enid Blyton’s ‘Famous Five’, they are not without inspiration when it comes to enjoying what nature has to offer.

Bear Grylls is a former member of the British Special Services and has carved a place for himself in the popular consciousness through his TV show, Man vs. Wild. In the show, Grylls encounters various types of hostile terrain and places himself in stressful situations in order to demonstrate survival techniques.

The show has attracted some notoriety due to Grylls’ willingness to subject himself to otherwise-repulsive scenarios – eating unappetising critters for example – but it’s his passion for the outdoors and an unbridled sense of adventure that has the potential to inspire younger viewers to get off the couch and head outside.

As well as his Man vs. Wild adventures, Grylls has had a leading role in a number of truly impressive expeditions. In 2003 he led the first team to cross the North Atlantic Ocean in an ‘open’ rigid inflatable boat, in 2000 he led the first team to circumnavigate the UK by jet ski and in 1998, at the age of 23, he became the youngest Briton (at the time) to reach the summit of Mt. Everest.

But if Bear Grylls has the potential to motivate otherwise-sedentary TV viewers into action, then the efforts of Ed Stafford should be enough to spark an adventuring revolution among our younger generations.

Earlier this month the former British Army captain became the first person to hike the length of the Amazon River. The epic trek took Stafford 859 days to complete in which time he faced hostility from local indigenous communities, the constant danger of not finding enough food and unwanted attention from all manner of creepy crawlies.

Stafford’s journey began in April 2008 when he reached the summit of the Nevado Mismi, a peak in the Peruvian Andes which is widely credited as the source of the Amazon River. At that point Stafford had the company of friend Luke Collyer but after the two had a falling out and the latter left the expedition, Stafford continued on alone.

Five months into the trek, Stafford was joined by Gadiel ‘Cho’ Sanchez Rivera, a local Peruvian who planned to accompany Stafford for five days. When Stafford reached the mouth of the Amazon two years later, Cho was still by his side.

While it’s pretty hard not to be inspired by Stafford’s efforts, not everyone is going to find the idea of a two-and-a-half year hike all that appealing. In fact, only a small percentage of the population would even consider embarking on such an expedition.

According to to Dr Brad Wright, a lecturer in the School of Psychological Science at La Trobe University, it is a sense of ‘hardiness’ that sets the likes of Stafford and Grylls apart from the majority of the population.

‘Hardiness is defined by higher levels of commitment, challenge and control’, he said.  ‘Those with a drive to push themselves to achieve often gain immense satisfaction from achieving their ambitions.’

Sure, the efforts Bear Grylls and Ed Stafford might be beyond the reach of most people, but that’s not to say they shouldn’t be cause for inspiration. And, at a time when our younger generations are spending less time outside than ever before and the average Australian adult spends 90 per cent of their time indoors, there are certainly worse people we could be looking up to.

This piece first appeared at The Punch.

If you are a fan of reality TV then there’s every chance you’ve imagined yourself as contestant on one of the genre’s many shows. Maybe you’ve thought your singing ability could make you the next Australian Idol, perhaps your love of the outdoors made you feel like you could be the next Survivor or maybe you thought a childhood spent playing with table-tennis balls was worth $500,000. If The Amazing Race is your reality show of choice, your dreams of becoming a D-list celebrity could well be on their way to fulfilment.

Channel Seven recently announced that it will be producing an Australian version of the popular US reality series, giving a handful of Australians the chance to race around the world for a ‘massive cash prize’. The show has been running in the US for nine years in which time CBS has managed to pump out an impressive sixteen seasons, with a 17th due for broadcast later this year.

For those that haven’t seen the show, take the biggest scavenger hunt you’ve ever seen, add pairs of clueless tourists, some Big Brother-style 24/7 surveillance and the most stressful elements of travelling, mix them together and you get something that vaguely resembles The Amazing Race.

Hundreds of teams are likely to apply for this ‘opportunity’ and if you thinking of throwing your hat in the ring, be aware that the 16-page application form provides would-be racers with more than a few hoops to jump through.

For starters, you’ve got to be willing to divulge some fairly personal information, including your weight, your relationship status and the names and ages of any children you might happen to have. If you’ve been arrested you have to provide full details and if you’ve ever hit someone ‘in anger or self-defence’ you have to explain why you did it.

If the personal questions are a little pointed then the questions about your relationship with your teammate are even more so. ‘What is the worst experience you have had with your teammate?’ doesn’t seem to be all that constructive a question and ‘What is the biggest disappointment you have experienced from your teammate?’ is not a whole lot better.

Of course it’s all about building a profile of you as a potential contestant and there are several questions within the application that will help the producers to narrow the field. For example, answering ‘no’ to ‘I am available for 5 weeks between September and December 2010′ is likely to see your application rejected before they even get to read your name. An answer of a disparaging nature to ‘What is your opinion of foreigners?’ is equally likely to terminate your prospects of appearing on the show.

As pointed and personal as the application is, it’s the fine print that will determine how much people are willing to sacrifice in order to get their faces on TV. One section explains that applicants ‘agree to comply with all requests and directions given by the Producers’ with a later paragraph insisting that such cooperation will be on a ‘twenty-four-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week basis’.

But if the desire to get your face on TV outweighs your desire not to be a Channel Seven pawn, it’s worth considering the contestant pool from previous versions of the show. For example, if the US version is anything to go by, the 11 teams are likely to cover a mixture of ethnicities, relationship types, ages and sexual preferences.

There will be an old married couple, a gay couple, the young female friends who provide eye-candy in the promos, a non-Caucasian team, a team of brothers or sisters, a father/son or father/daughter team and, being an Australian version of the show, a team of bogans. Tailoring your written and video applications to one of these combinations is likely to be the best route to the audition process.

But of course your application needs to be special in order to stand out from the hundreds of entries that Seven are likely to receive and it’s the video application that presents the best chance of catching the producers’ collective eye. You should try to engage with the viewer, convince them that the show would benefit from your presence and as the application form says, ‘personality counts!’

But if you want a serious advantage in making your application stand out then John Safran’s 1997 audition tape for Race Around the World is just about the best audition tape you are ever likely to see. Not only is Safran aware that the producers need a way of labelling him but he uses his otherwise-annoying voice as a way of selling himself.

Having said that, Race Around the World did see Safran running naked through the streets of Jerusalem and placing a curse on his ex-girlfriend.  Whether or not these sort of antics will be included in the ‘requests and directions’ given by producers of The Amazing Race Australia remains highly unlikely…

This is a piece I wrote just after the election had been called and that bounced its way around various editors’ inboxes but received no reply. The National Times was going to publish it last week but decided against it in an attempt to focus on non-election articles. Imagine now that its the first week of the election campaign and that Gillard still looked like she had a stranglehold over the Mad Monk…

We have our reigning champion and we have our contender. We have our crowd favourite and we have our underdog. We have our hype and we have our nervous anticipation. And now, with August 21, we have a date for our title fight.

The Australian political landscape bears many similarities with the world of professional wrestling and the notion of ‘kayfabe’ is no exception.

For the uninitiated, kayfabe is the wrestler’s code; the unspoken rule that obliges wrestlers to present the world of ‘sports entertainment’ as real. In reality, matches are decided before the competitors enter the ring, feuds and allegiances are scripted well in advance of their on-screen appearances and blows in the ring never quite land as hard as they should. It is kayfabe that seeks to maintain the suspension of belief for the audience.

While seeing Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott slug it out in a ‘Hell in a Cell’ match does have a certain appeal, the concept of political kayfabe is rather more subtle. In any given situation, it is the opposition’s role to oppose the government, regardless of the merits of the government’s argument.

If the government lunges forth with a new policy; the opposition counters with a stinging critique. If the government pulls some new legislation from under the ring, the opposition attempts to disarm them in the senate. One need only look to the events of the last year to see political kayfabe in action.

When the federal government proposed the introduction of a Resources Super Profits Tax in May the opposition dubbed it a ‘great big new tax which could effectively kill the Golden Goose’; the Australian mining sector. Yet when Prime Minister Gillard made considerable negotiations with the mining industry in an attempt to ensure a solid future for the industry, the Coalition continued their vocal disapproval of the scheme.

The issue of Labor’s internet filter is another pertinent example. While Abbott has been noticeably non-committal on the issue of internet censorship, Joe Hockey has been willing to offer his opinion, dutifully slamming the scheme. Yet, when Senator Conroy announced that the internet filter would be delayed due to community concerns, the Coalition was quick to offer their critique of the move, labelling the decision a ‘humiliating backflip’.

But the most indicative example of political kayfabe in action is Labor’s seemingly doomed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. When the Rudd/Wong partnership announced their ETS late last year, the Abbott-led opposition was quick to hit it with the ‘great big new tax’ stamp. Yet, when Rudd announced the indefinite shelving of the ETS, the Coalition’s continued to criticise Rudd, accusing him of political cowardice.

Rather than have a rational debate about the issue of climate change, both the Rudd government and Abbott opposition continued to fight for their respective policies, unwilling to surrender. In the grapple that ensued, the real losers were the health of our planet and our future generations.

Sure, we’re all for a debate that provides us with several interpretations of an important issue; without such a debate we would hardly have perspective on the pressing issues that face our nation. And sure, you could argue that the opposition’s job is to, well, oppose the government. But on rare occasions our politicians have shown that political kayfabe can be set aside in favour of the greater good.

When Kevin Rudd made his now famous apology to indigenous Australians for the atrocity that manifested itself in the ‘stolen generations’, then-opposition leader Brendan Nelson followed Rudd’s speech, endorsing the then-prime minister’s message. Indeed the apology was supported by all but a handful of opposition ministers, showing that common ground is possible on matters of great import.

Why can’t this attitude of mutual understanding and compromise be taken as the starting point every time? Why can’t the important issues be discussed rationally without succumbing to the obligations of political kayfabe?

Professional wrestling can be entertaining even when we know that matches are decided before the combatants enter the ring. But wouldn’t it be nice to have the occasional fight where the outcome was decided in the ring? By all means have a debate about the key issues – this is a democracy after all – but why not start with the aim of creating solutions, rather than fulfilling ideological responsibilities?

But, with a title fight just around the corner, it’s almost certain that the current rules of engagement will prevail. After all, Tony Abbott is expecting Labor to run a ‘filthy’ election campaign and, if history is anything to go by, Julia Gillard should expect no less from the opposition. After all, it’s all in the script…

This review first appeared at upstart.

With the volume of mind-numbing dross that comes out of Hollywood these days, it’s refreshing to find a film that actually forces the viewer to do some thinking. Make no mistake about it; Inception is mind-numbing, but in the best way possible.

The film follows the plight of Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), an ‘extractor’ who has fled the US after being implicated in his wife’s death. In leaving his country behind, Cobb has also become separated from his young children and the film pivots around Cobb’s attempts at a family reunion. But this emotional hook is only the skeleton of a wonderfully confusing and thought-provoking film.

As an ‘extractor’, Cobb invades people’s dreams, entering their subconscious mind in order to ‘extract’ valuable secrets. When he accepts an offer to perform an ‘inception’ – an attempt to plant an idea in a target’s head – things become a little more challenging for Cobb and wonderfully mind-bending for the viewer.

Cobb assembles a crack team – dream ‘architect’ Ariadne, sedatives expert Yusuf, ‘forger’ Eames, and ‘point man’ Arthur – and together they attempt to subconsciously influence the young heir to a multi-national corporation. What follows is a perplexing journey through various characters’ dreams, through dreams-within-dreams and through questions about the very nature of reality itself.

It’s very easy to get lost within the complexity of this film and a number of times I found myself wanting to pause the film, just to have a chance to digest everything that was happening. For this reason, Inception is a brave film – not everyone will enjoy the intricate storyline and viewers who like their films short and flashy might find this to be fairly tough going.

Luckily, there are several cues to help the audience navigate through this philosophical playground. For example, whenever the young dream architect Ariadne (Ellen Page) asks a question of the more experienced extractors, it is as much about explaining the film’s plot to the audience as it is about moving the story forward. Just as her mythological namesake helped Theseus to escape from the depths of the Cretian labyrinth, Inception’s Ariadne helps the viewer to successfully navigate the twists and turns of the film’s complex plot.

Full credit must go to writer, producer and director Christopher Nolan here for his vision and execution in bringing Inception to the big screen. The film had been in development for ten years prior to its release and it’s not hard to see why.

Where a film like Avatar was visually impressive but lacking an original storyline, Inception delivers on both fronts, keeping the audience on their toes throughout. Sure, Nolan is heavily influenced by the likes of Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott and the Wachowski brothers, but Inception still manages a fusion of fast-paced gun-play, engaging storyline and philosophy that few films can lay claim to.

Special mention should also go to Inception’s cinematographer, Wally Pfister, who brings the film’s breathtaking car-chases, amazing cityscapes and action set-pieces to life in a way that is truly captivating. The dream worlds of Inception are particularly impressive and the sight of Paris folding in on itself and the zero-gravity hotel fight will stick with the viewer long after leaving the cinema.

Inception is a film that challenges you to stay involved the whole way through and that is likely to leave you feeling a little dazed and confused. It’s also a film that leaves you with as many questions as it answers and the film’s final sequence is no exception.

If you enjoy films that are thought-provoking and that leave you questioning plotlines for days afterwards then go and see Inception. At times it’s a challenge just to keep up, but it’s more than worth the effort.

The verdict: 5/5

If professional cycling was a Hollywood starlet, it would have just emerged from rehab, teetering on the edge of another relapse. The sport’s reputation has long been tainted by those who have resorted to doping and a handful of such offenders are found every year.

In the 2007 Tour de France dual stage winner Alexandra Vinokourov was found guilty of doping and his Astana team immediately withdrew from the race. The following year, teammates Riccardo Ricco and Leonard Piepoli were fired from the Saunier Duval squad after both riders admitted to taking the banned substance, MIRCERA. In the 2009 Tour de France, stage 16 winner Mikel Astarloza was found guilty of doping in the weeks leading up to the race.

While this year’s Tour de France yielded no cases of doping, there is a storm brewing and it hangs directly over the sport’s greatest champion, Lance Armstrong.

According to Armstrong’s former teammate Floyd Landis – the man who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France victory after failing a drug test – Armstrong used banned substances in 2002 and 2003 while riding for the U.S Postal Service team. While Armstrong has denied the claims, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), International Cycling Union (UCI) and US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) have all signalled their intentions to investigate Landis’ allegations.

But Landis isn’t alone in making allegations against Armstrong. Three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond told The Denver Post that the upcoming doping investigation would find “overwhelming” evidence of wrongdoing on Armstrong’s behalf.

In fact, Armstrong’s career has been littered with allegations of doping. On one such occasion, the French newspaper L’Equipe claimed that six of Armstrong’s urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France had been found to contain the banned substance EPO. At the time, drug tests weren’t able to detect EPO – a hormone which induces red blood cell production – but later tests apparently found evidence of EPO use.  In 2008 Armstrong refused further testing on the samples on the grounds that they had not been properly maintained.

Despite this and other accusations levelled at Armstrong throughout his career, the seven-time Tour de France winner has never tested positive to an official drug test. The agencies responsible for investigating Landis’ claims will be hoping they don’t find cause to disrupt that record.

While the suspensions faced by riders like Vinokourov and Landis have damaged the reputation of professional cycling, to find Armstrong guilty of doping would be catastrophic for the credibility of the sport. After all, with the greatest story in cycling history, Armstrong has the most to lose.

After being given a minimal chance of surviving a bout of cancer that affected his lungs, testicles and brain, Armstrong not only made a comeback to professional cycling but managed to win the sport’s greatest race, the Tour de France, seven times in a row. The Texan’s cancer-comeback and unprecedented success at le Tour resulted in a huge increase in the sport’s popularity in the US and around the world. During Armstrong’s reign, television audiences for the Tour de France increased significantly and USA Cycling memberships rose considerably.

But for all of Armstrong’s influence on the popularity of the sport, the hard work will all be undone if he is found to have doped his way to the top. His frequent claims of innocence, his apparent “six hours a day” on the bike in lieu of drugs and his good-guy persona will all count for nothing if Landis’ damaging claims are proven to be true.

For the sake of the sport we can only hope that Floyd Landis is being as dishonest now as he was in 2006.

This article first appeared at Crikey.

It’s been a long time coming, but Skins is finally back on Australian TV. It’s been four months since the show’s fourth season concluded in the UK and now, finally, Australian audiences get to see it.

For those that are new to the award-winning British drama, Skins follows the exploits of a group of friends as they negotiate the ups and downs of teenage life in Bristol. Season four sees the return of the previous season’s cast, including some of the most memorable and believable characters in the show to date.

James Dean-wannabe Cook (Jack O’Connell) is a stand-out and is as entertaining as he is repulsive, the school’s new headmaster — the hilariously harsh Professor David Blood — is played to a tee by stand-up comedian Chris Addison, and Hugo Speer is chilling as a psychiatrist later in the series.

Focusing on the exploits of family-man and occasional DJ Thomas Tomone, tonight’s season opener sets the tone for the series in more ways than one. The episode’s dark overtones are a fixture throughout the entire season and the tragic events of the episode’s opening minutes serve to drive a main plotline for over half the series.

Unfortunately, season four is the shortest Skins season to date at a measly eight episodes long. This comes as a bit of a disappointment when US dramas like Gossip Girl manage to churn out 20-plus episode per season. Still, the age-old quip about quality vs. quantity is most apt here, and the length of the season is just about the only drawback to be found.

Skins’ strong point has always been its ability to combine heavier, more dramatic events with the more whimsical moments of troubled youth. Just when an episode feels like it is being weighed down by tragedy and the trials of teenage angst, a lighter moment is invariably introduced to balance the mood. Similarly, the show’s lighter moments never feel like they are allowed to dominate the tone of the show and a more dramatic moment is never far away.

All the ingredients of angsty teen drama are here — the unbridled passion of first love, the tragedy of a broken family, the waxing and waning of old friendships. But what sets Skins apart from the likes of Home and Away and Neighbours is its ability to go beyond the soap-opera clichés and embrace the hedonistic and oftentimes dangerous world of teenage life.

There’s frequent drug use, explorations of s-xual orientation and a peek into the frightening world of mental illness and they all make for truly compelling viewing. This is gritty, believable and honest storytelling that works overtime to engage the viewer on an emotional level. Not to be missed.

The details: Season four of Skins starts tonight at 10pm on SBS One.

For those that were fortunate enough to miss my torrent of Twitter and Facebook spam two weeks ago, I had an article published on News Limited’s opinion website, The Punch. The silly little piece about Channel Seven’s new US-import Hung attracted criticism from a large percentage of the 84 readers that commented, leaving me feeling a little despondent.

As well as attracting a whole slew of comments, the Hung piece also attracted the attention of one reporter at the Sydney Morning Herald. She was keen to find out more about my distate for the show and after interviewing me over the phone, my comments made it to her story the next day.

Keen to get another article in The Punch as soon as possible, I penned another piece, this one critical of the Nine Network’s choice of programming. Nine’s RBT, a show about random breath testing (hence the ultra-stylish acronym), premieres tomorrow night and I thought it a worthy target of some sarcasm-laden criticism.

The folks at The Punch said the piece was good and that they would get back to me on Thursday about publishing it on Friday. I didn’t hear back from them and I’m not quite sure why; it’s not like there was a major political story unfolding that day or anything.

So, without further ado, here’s episode two of ‘The Discarded’, ‘Front-line heroes…’

With around a third of Australian road fatalities being directed related to drink-driving and with millions of drivers being breath tested every year, you’d think that people would start to realise that drink driving might be a bad idea. Apparently not, given that the percentage of alcohol-related road fatalities has remained constant over the last two decades.

This Sunday, with the premiere of their snappily-titled reality show RBT, the Nine Network will do their bit in the fight against drink-driving. Or, to put it another way, Nine will now start capitalising on people’s inability to separate the acts of alcohol consumption and motor vehicle control.

For those that are a little confused by Nine’s trendy acronym use, RBT stands for Random Breath Testing; a decidedly less marketable title you might agree. According to a press release from Nine, the “compelling new series goes behind the lines of the NSW Police force on breath testing operations”.

While it’s true that RBT is a “new” series for Nine, the idea of going behind the scenes of a public department or service is about as original as the songs being played by the cover band at your local watering hole. The “front-line heroes” formula has produced a number of forgettable shows for the commercial networks in the last few years; Ten’s Bondi Rescue, Nine’s Customs and Seven’s essentially-xenophobic Border Security, just to name a few.

The “front-line heroes” show is a close cousin of the “feel-good” reality show, examples of which include Seven’s RSPCA Animal Rescue, the soppy Find My Family and Nine’s equally emotional Random Acts of Kindness. Both genres are in the business of thriving on their emotional impact; the “front-line heroes” show drawing strength from a feeling of pride in the admirable work done by our community services, the “feel-good” show drawing us in with the promise of tears and emotional fulfilment.

As well as drawing respectable audiences such shows have the added bonus of being very cheap for their respective networks to produce. After all, why bother paying someone to write and create an original show when there’s money to be made by sending a crew to film the everyday workings of an existing department or service?

While I’m not nearly important enough to get my hands on an advanced copy of RBT, I have been privy to the fleeting promos for the show’s upcoming premiere. And, while this isn’t a review of the show, I’m willing to hazard a couple of educated guesses at what one might see, should they decide to tune in to RBT in its run on Nine;

What you will see

-          A disproportionately high number of drivers being caught under the influence of drugs and alcohol

-          Nine hamming up the “front-line heroes” angle

-          At least one concerned-looking police officer proselytising about how “kids these days think they’re invincible”

-          Commercial breaks featuring the latest alcohol-awareness ads

What you won’t see

-          The overwhelming majority of Australian breath tests that show drivers to be free of alcohol or drugs.

-          Commercial breaks full of Carlton Draught and Victoria Bitter ads

-          A nuanced analysis of what makes people decide to drink-drive

So as we head into the weekend and many of you head to after-work drinks I’d like to propose a toast to the 33 per cent of Australians who have admitted to drink driving. Without you lovely folk providing work for breath testing officers we wouldn’t have the likes of RBT on Australian TV.

Cheers.

Update: Once the dust had settled on the Labor leadership spill, the folks at The Punch got back to me and said they still wanted to run the piece. So, I tracked down the first episode of RBT on the Nine Network’s website, had a watch and re-wrote the piece. The finished product is now online at The Punch.

Image courtesy of the ABC

Given the lack of attention that Jason Akermanis has had over the past few weeks, I thought I’d spend some time analysing a little article that the Bulldogs’ forward penned recently.

For those that missed Aker’s charming attempt to play counsellor for gay footballers, the original article is well worth a read; if only for the story about a perfectly good team shower ruined by a gay team mate.

According to Akermanis ‘the world of AFL footy is not ready’ for gay players to ‘come out’, saying that such a revelation could ‘break the fabric of a club’. While I could terminate the discussion here by pointing to the excellent retort written by Gerard Whateley, I would be denying myself a tantalising opportunity to provide an overly sarcastic, holier-than-thou analysis.

Come to think of it, Akermanis is not that far off the mark. Sure, his assessment of the situation is fairly lacking in nuanced analysis but the idea that blokey sporting clubs aren’t ready for gay men to come out is, well, fairly spot on.

Having been a member of a decidedly blokey sporting club for some years I can confirm that sporting culture and empathy for homosexuality aren’t really the greatest of friends. I never played alongside any openly-gay teammates but the blokey banter was enough to leave me with a fair idea of the general attitude towards ‘poofters’. Indeed the use of the word ‘poofters’ should be indication enough.

I can also speak with some authority in agreeing with Akermanis’ suggestion that ‘locker room nudity and homoerotic activities’ are the norm in that environment. I always found it amusing when my teammates would slap each other on the arse during a match, happily shower naked together, and yet still use the word ‘poofter’ as an insult, completely oblivious to the ironic corner they had backed themselves into.

I also agree with Akermanis in saying that the outing of a gay man might tear at the fabric of an AFL club but, as Jack Marx points out, that might well be a good thing. The problem here is not that gay players are a threat to the manliness that football culture is built upon, rather it’s football culture that is a threat to gay players.

While it would be genuinely tough for an AFL footballer to ‘come out’ in the current football climate, few things could be more beneficial to the sport in the long run. What better way to combat institutionalised homophobia than to have proudly gay footballers declare their sexuality while being prepared to discuss it in the public arena? Sure, the footballing world might not know how to handle it initially but it would surely be a step in the right direction.

I mean, even Eddie McGuire thinks it’s a good idea for gay AFL players to come out, telling SX News that he ‘would love it’ were such a revelation to occur. Then again, Eddie also thought it was a good idea to describe figure skaters as not ‘leaving anything in the closet’ while commentating at the recent Winter Olympics.

But it’s not just sporting clubs that seem to feel threatened by homosexuality. If Channel Seven reporter Adam Walters is to be believed, the Australian public are so concerned about homosexuality that a story about David Campbell’s visit to a gay sauna is the biggest news story of the week. To foster a greater sense of connection between Jason Akermanis and the former NSW transport minister I would like to invoke the wisdom of Twitter user @heavyphotons;

‘Akermanis tells gay men to live a lie. David Campbell shows us how you’re treated when you do.’

For those that missed Adam Walters’ shameful excuse for investigative journalism, David Campbell handed in his resignation after ‘a 7News investigation’ filmed him leaving the ‘gay sauna’, Ken’s at Kensington. The initial accusation was that Campbell was at fault for using his ministerial car to visit the venue, but when 7News discovered that he was well within his rights to do so, the focus of the story changed.

As Jonathon Holmes explained on Media Watch last week, the issue morphed into a question of Campbell’s sexuality and the fact that he had allegedly been ‘living a double life’. Thankfully, 7News’ decision to run the Campbell story – ruining a man’s career and personal life in the process – attracted the scrutiny of many within the Australian media, not just the watchful folk at Media Watch.

Journalist and former Media Watch presenter David Marr was typically succinct when commenting for ABC TV’s Lateline: ‘Campbell was destroyed by Channel Seven for being gay, full stop.’ David Koch of Sunrise fame impressed many with his criticism of Adam Walters’ apparent double-standard and Crikey’s Andrew Crook took the criticism even further, accusing Walters of having a score to settle.

But perhaps the most telling reaction to the 7News’ ‘investigation’ was the collective damnation of the story by journalism educators around the country. As Crikey reported, more than 50 journalism academics put their names to the statement ‘we deplore what you did to David Campbell and his family’.

It goes without saying that the reaction to Campbell’s ‘double-life’ would have been far less had he been cheating on his wife with another woman. The fact that he seems to enjoy the attention of other men has turned a routine breach of a public figure’s privacy into a ‘gay witch hunt’.

Footy clubs have never been known for the progressive attitudes on matters of sexuality but David Campbell’s trial by media is a sad step backwards in our quest to achieve understanding and respect for everyone, regardless of their sexuality. Channel Seven’s attempt to assess  ‘public interest’ stories hopefully says more about the misguided direction of the network rather than society’s thirst for gay blood.

But lest we finish this evening in a cloud of doom and gloom, let’s be grateful that we Australians don’t have the likes of Fred Phelps throwing their weight around. Never mind gay ministers and gay footballers, if Mr Phelps is to believed, we Aussies have far bigger problems on our hands. The good pastor provided this glorious insight during the Black Saturday bushfires last year:

‘God hates Australia, land of the sodomite damned. The fag-infested land of Australia – the fire of God’s wrath is sending hundreds of those filthy Australian beasts straight to hell. We at the Westboro Baptist Church are rejoicing, and we are praying for the dear lord to burn many more Australians alive.’

All of a sudden, Jason Akermanis doesn’t seem like such a bad bloke…

For those that haven’t been following #matttheintern on Twitter, I’m currently into my second week of a three week internship at Crikey. It’s been an eye-opening experience thus far and my first week and a bit has presented me with equal parts despair and satistfaction.

I  was lucky enough to have had a couple of pieces published in my first week. First there was my wrap-up of the UK election, with a little help from deputy editor Jason Whittaker. Then there was a silly little post for Crikey‘s travel blog “Back in a Bit”, about my relationship with airports. And on Friday my piece about the Adelaide Advertiser’s decision not to run an Australian Sex Party ad made it to the front page of Crikey.

As fun as it is to talk about the pieces that I have had published, I’m also keen to share with you the pieces that didn’t get published. Early last week I wrote up a silly little piece about a local footy team that recently managed to get beaten by 401 points. The piece didn’t pass Crikey’s quality control checks (which are decidedly more stringent than the ones I impose on myself here) and as a result it didn’t get published.

The good news for you, dear reader, is that Crikey’s decision not to publish the piece doesn’t mean you won’t get to read it. Without further ado it’s my pleasure to introduce ‘The Discarded’, the pieces that didn’t quite make the grade, and epsiode one, ‘For the love of the game…’

To all the Richmond fans who have been lamenting their side’s fortunes this season, spare a thought for the North Sunshine Football Club. According to a piece published in The Age today, the Roadrunners haven’t managed a single win in their last two seasons of football and Saturday’s match against the Albanvale Cobras did little to buck that trend.

The Cobras piled on a staggering 67 goals and 22 behinds to pummel the Roadrunners by 401 points – the sixth largest margin in the game’s history, according to The Age. Three Cobras players managed to kick 10 or more goals with 14 players making it to the goal-kickers list. Matthew Mallach was the only Roadrunner to kick multiple goals, snagging two of North Sunshine’s three.

While Saturday’s 65 goal loss is an obvious lowlight for the club, it’s not the first time this season that the Roadrunners have been defeated by an extravagant margin. In their four matches prior to the Cobras loss, North Sunshine have lost by 236 points, 231 points, 184 points and a comparatively succesful 88 points.

But it’s not all bad news for the Roadrunners with former Richmond star Matthew Richardson offering to hold a training session with the team. Club President Mark Neicho told The Age that Richo’s offer would help to motivate the ailing squad.

“Knowing he’s going to come down and do a training run might pep the guys up enough and keep them motivated.”

I’m no sports psychology expert but I reckon it’s going to take a bit more than a single training session to motivate the team after a loss like that. As a junior footballer I played in one particular match where we found ourselves losing by the comparatively respectable margin of 20 goals. The memory of that slaughter at the hands of the Under-12 powerhouse that was the Vermont Football Club sticks with me some 12 years later; I can only imagine what it must be like to lose by 65 goals.

However, full credit must go to North Sunshine club president Mark Neicho for facing up to the flurry of interview requests that have come his way since the weekend. His ability to put a positive spin on things is quite impressive.

“These guys are local boys that enjoy playing for a local side and enjoy the mateship – playing football with their friends”, he told The Age.

I enjoy team sport and the associated camaraderie as much as the next guy but I can tell you now, there would be nothing enjoyable about being beaten by 401 points.