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…

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…

In the world of five-star hotels the serving of breakfast seems to be inextricably linked with the serving of breakfast television. Until a few weeks ago our news-tainment provider of choice was Channel Seven’s Sunrise, hosted by dynamic duo Kochie and Mel. Nowadays, at the behest of “the man”, we fill our restaurant with the sounds of Karl Stefanovic and Lisa Wilkinson of Channel Nine’s Today. According to the powers that be within our reputable establishment, Nine’s breakfast offering is “better” than Seven’s. It isn’t exactly clear what “better” means in this context but I’m willing to hazard a few guesses.

Perhaps the celebrity gossip on Today is “better” than the gossip featured on Sunrise. Perhaps the advertising spots on Today are of far greater quality than those seen on Sunrise. Or maybe it’s Today‘s ability to sensationalise recent news stories better than Sunrise that makes it the pick of the breakfast viewing.

On yesterday morning’s edition of Today the team ran a story about the recent stabbing death of 12 year old Brisbane boy Elliot Fletcher. The story began with several parents discussing the apparent increase in violence in Australian schools before cutting to host Lisa Wilkinson reading through a list of incidents that demonstrated such an increase. As if Today‘s angle on this story wasn’t clear enough already, they concluded the story by “interviewing” Norm Hart of the Queensland Association of State School Principals.

As a journalism student I have been taught that interviews should consist largely of “open” questions rather than questions which lead the interviewee to a specific answer or force a simple “yes” or “no” answer. In the case of the story in question, something like the following might have been appropriate;

“What does the recent stabbing death of Elliot Fletcher tell us about safety in our schools?”

But no. Apparently that line of questioning is a little too boring for Ms. Wilkinson who decided to go with something a little different;

“Should parents be worried as they send their kids off to school this morning?”

To Mr Hart’s credit he participated in the interview as well as could be expected given that he need not have been there at all. I mean, why would you bother inviting someone to give their expert opinion on an issue if, when concluding the interview, you are going to completely disregard everything that they’ve said thus far?

“Understandably a lot of parents (are) not feeling that’s the case today but we do thank you very much for your time this morning”.

Sure, you could probably argue that Lisa Wilkinson isn’t technically a journalist in her role as co-host of Today but if you are presenting news items and interviewing relevant authority figures related to said items, then surely some minimum standards of journalistic integrity must apply? You know, like presenting information in an rational and objective way rather than trying to sensationalise important issues.

Let’s keep things in perspective here – a 12 year old boy getting stabbed to death while at school is truly horrific and of real concern to parents and teachers alike but that doesn’t mean that kids around the country are suddenly unsafe at school. There are a lot of kids going to a lot of schools on a lot of days of the year, I hardly think a couple of isolated incidents of school yard violence are cause to keep the kids at home.

But it’s all about the kids. The mainstream media loves nothing more than a “kids are at risk” story but most of the time such stories are dependant on deliberate scaremongering in order to provoke emotional responses from concerned parents. That’s not to say that the issues at hand aren’t important, they should just be dealt with rationally and in a considered fashion.

Speaking of fashion, most people know of Miley “Hannah Montana” Cyrus but far fewer would be aware of her younger sister, Noah. Nor should they be because Noah is a little girl of 10 years old – not that you would know it from her choice of attire.

In October of last year Miley’s younger sister “made headlines” when she donned a “dominatrix-inspired” costume for Halloween celebrations and in the last couple months there have been rumours circulating of a lingerie line being released by junior Cyrus and her friend Emily Grace Reaves. Thankfully such rumours appear to be false and the clothing company in question, Ooh! La! La! Couture, seems to make tutus with tanktops rather than girls’ lingerie.

Noah Cyrus is only one example of an apparent shift toward the sexualisation of young girls and social commentators like Mia Freedman have written extensively on this issue. To a significant percentage of the community, young girls dressing and acting as if they were far older results in the corruption of childhood and the premature loss of innocence. “They are growing up too fast”, the older generations often remark, with advertising, the media and the internet often copping the blame.

Regardless of one’s own thoughts on this issue, it’s hard to deny that it is an issue that a lot of people feel very strongly about. While the solution to the problem isn’t as easy as banning the sale of lingerie for young girls, for example, it’s clear that parents have an important role to play. If you are concerned about your little girl growing up too fast then it’s probably not a good idea to let them watch Beyonce film clips at six years old.

The mainstream media has an important role to play as well. Rather than the aforementioned scaremongering that the commercial networks love to fill their “current affairs” and breakfast shows with, there should be a greater focus on programs that facilitate meaningful discussion about serious issues. The ABC’s Q & A is a perfect example of such a program and it makes for brilliant viewing.

The weekly show features a panel of expert guests who discuss topical issues as directed by the audience and moderated by one of Australia’s greatest interviewers, Tony Jones. Of course he isn’t “Australia’s best interviewer” because that mantle belongs to Tracy Grimshaw of Nine’s A Current Affair. Step aside Andrew Denton, stop tryin’ Kerry O’Brien, Ms. Grimshaw has you both covered…

As an employee of a reasonably-professional accommodation provider, I am required to work the occasional breakfast shift. As if the horror of getting up at 4:30am isn’t enough, the powers that be insist that we broadcast mindless drivel on the restaurant’s television.

Now I don’t know anyone that’s going to claim that Channel Seven’s Sunrise program even vaguely resembles quality programming, but last Sunday’s episode was something special. Not half an hour after broadcasting this attempt at balanced journalism the Sunrise crew were throwing to their resident astrologer for the daily horoscopes.

As was explained in the aforementioned video, astrology is the pseudoscience that claims that the positions of the stars and planets can be analysed in order to provide information about human personalities, behaviours and the workings of society in general. In the West this tradition manifests itself most frequently in the form of horoscopes which can be found in trashy magazines and newspapers everywhere. These lovely snippets of “information” claim to provide predictions about the future, based solely on the reader’s date of birth.

According to astrologers a person’s zodiac sign is determined by the position of the sun relative to the background stars on the date of their birth and that person will have certain character traits determined by their particular zodiac sign. For example, between November 23 and December 22 the sun is said to appear in the constellation of Sagittarius and therefore, with my birthday falling on the 25th of November, I am said to be a Sagittarius. According to Astrology.com.au Sagittarians are extremely confident, prone to bouts of good fortune, are known for their contagious enthusiasm and so on.

But there are some major problems with this theory. Firstly, in order to believe what astrologers tell us, we must convince ourselves that the position of the sun at a particular date, relative to the background stars, can actually affect an individual’s personality. Exactly how it does this is a mystery but Astrology.com.au offers this helpful explanation;

“…our luminescent sun apparently moves month by month throughout the year, transceiving the energy of those different constellational signs and thereby transmitting the celestial radiations to our Earth“.

Ok, so that makes perfect sense. The sun somehow grabs some sort of mystical personality-building energy from constellations that are millions of kilometres away (the closest star in the Sagittarius constellation is Ross 154 and is located 91,577,915,000,000 kilometres from the sun) and beams it down to earth. Sounds very scientific to me.

Secondly, even if it’s true that the position of the sun at the time of my birth imbues me with certain character traits, astrologers would have us believe such traits are common to all Sagittarians. That is, everyone born between November 23 and December 22 is supposed to share a set of common character traits. I find it rather difficult to believe that everyone born between these dates is confident, lucky and enthusiastic as I supposedly am.

Even if we believe all of that, there is still one major hurdle to overcome. When the Babylonians first drafted the Zodiac around 2,500 years ago, the sun was in the constellation of Sagittarius between November 23 and December 22. However, thanks to the efforts of Greek fellows like Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus of Rhodes and Ptolemy we now know of the phenomenon known as “axial precession”.

While you may know that the Earth spins while in it’s orbit around the Sun, you might not know that it spins off-centre. While we are taught to think of the Earth as spinning around a vertical axis, this axis is actually tilted by 23 degrees. In addition to causing the different seasons that we experience on Earth, the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis has a secondary effect. As this short clip demonstrates, by having an axis that is a certain amount away from the vertical, the axis of rotation actually moves over a period of time. This results in a gradual change in our observable “star field”.

Imagine you are lying in the dentist’s chair at the end of a check-up, focused on a spot on the ceiling. Imagine too that you can’t move your eyes at all and that you are forced to look straight ahead. As the dentist changes the angle of the chair to bring you into an upright position, your eyes, unable to look around, will trace a straight line from the ceiling down the wall. Axial precession is kind of like that – as the angle of the Earth’s rotational axis changes, so what we can see from our vantage point on the Earth changes.

So, what does this have to do with astrology and the Babylonians? Well, as I mentioned, the signs of the Zodiac were first assigned around 2,500 years ago. Since that time axial precession has changed the apparent location of the background stars. So, the Sun, which once appeared to be in the constellation of Sagittarius on the 25th of November now appears to be in the constellation of Scorpio. Therefore I am no longer “a Sagittarius”, instead I am “a Scorpio”.
In order to be a Sagittarius now I would need to be born between December 18th and January 19th.

Well that’s all pretty clear cut isn’t it? Astrology is a pseudoscience that makes claims above and beyond its station without considering the workings of relevant celestial phenomena.

But two days after watching Sunrise at work I stumbled upon a book at my local shopping centre that I couldn’t resist flicking through. It was “What Your Birthday Reveals About You” by Phyllis Vega and it claimed to provide “astonishingly accurate revelations about your future, your secrets and your strengths” based, you guessed it, on the individual’s zodiac sign. I flicked sceptically to November 25 and read through some of my alleged character traits;

• Those born on November 25 are inclined to live “intense lives of crusading ideals”

• Although I “give the impression of being a bit of a loner”, I’m “actually searching for meaningful ways to connect with other people”

• I could “satisfy my creative muse…as a writer, journalist, publisher, artist, musician or actor”

• I am “a natural athlete with a genuine love of the outdoors”.

I could go on. Scarily, all of these suggestions are quite true and as I read on, more and more of the statements seemed to be accurate. I faced a brief internal struggle – “I know astrology is bogus, but how are these predictions so accurate?

And then it occured to me. If astrology is an accurate and consistent scientific pursuit then surely these predictions are based on some immutable, objective truth that is directly related to my date of birth. Consequently, if I was to go to another source of birthday-based wisdom, I would find similar, if not exactly the same results. So, does Astrology.com.au say the same things as Phyllis Vega about those of us born on November 25?

Life of crusading ideals? Not mentioned. Loner with intent to communicate at a higher level? Not in so many words. Suited for a creative career like journalism? Not quite. Naturally sporty? Doesn’t come up.

However, I am apparently blessed with a colourful imagination and a rare tolerance for others. Are either of these mentioned in Ms. Vega’s book? I think you know the answer to that…

I can only imagine how difficult it must be to be the parent of a new-born child – assuming complete responsiblility for the welfare of an otherwise helpless individual. Naturally some decisions that parents must make on behalf of their child are of little or no consequence – like deciding which clothes your baby will wear for the day – but other decisions, like whether or not to get your baby son circumcised, well, that’s a different matter entirely.

Many of you folks would no doubt have stumbled upon Channel Seven’s creatively titled current affairs programme ‘Sunday Night’ last weekend where you might have seen Monique Wright’s report on the ‘new’ research that has emerged regarding the potential medical benefits of circumcision. If you didn’t get to see the programme or if you are keen to see the segment again, it can be found here – at least until next Sunday.

It’s obviously a contentious issue – parents and people in general are hesitant when knives and genitals are mentioned in the same sentence but at the same time if the evidence suggests that our boys are better off circumcised then not then we obviously have an obligation to at least consider the option. Before we get rational and actually look at the science behind circumcision though, let’s do some history and some cursory glancin’.

Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years, the earliest recorded cases coming from the ancient Egyptians. Jewish scripture is replete with the mention of the necessity of circumcision and to this day all Jewish boys are required to participate in brit milah in their eighth day of life in order to welcome them into their covenant with God. While it is not mandated by the Qur’an the majority of Muslim boys undergo Khitan as well, the widespread view in the Muslim world being that circumcision serves to introduce boys to Islam and foster a sense of belonging within the Islamic community.

Of course parents throughout the ages have had their boys circumcised for entirely non-religious reason as well – “we want him to look like his Dad”, “it’s better for hygene” and “it prevents disease” are all often cited as justification.
Despite the ongoing debate it seems to be a fairly basic issue to me – in order to get your son circumcised the health benefits must outweigh the ethical and moral considerations. “What considerations?” I hear you ask. Thanks for the lead in.

If you put aside the potential health benefits of circumsion for one second and consider in isolation the process of cutting a portion of a baby boy’s penis off, how is this tradition any different to the phenomenon known as female genital cutting? Both procedures take place on the assumption that it is morally justified for parent(s) to subject an unconsenting minor to an operation which causes significant pain and discomfort on the grounds that such pain is fleeting and that the procedure is of overall benefit. Sure, it might be a strong comparison to make, but it is a valuable one, if only to ensure that parents don’t make lightly the decision to circumcise their sons.

While we are in the business of dissuading parents from cutting chunks off their sons, besides circumcision, since when has preventative surgery been recommended as acceptable medical practice? As one of the doctors in the aforementioned video points out, would we be willing to take a pre-emptive strike against our noses in the fear that we might one day contract a cancer of the nose as a result of over-exposure to UV rays?

If you want the official word on whether or not circumcision is a valuable course of action, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians suggests that there is “no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure in the neonate”. The American Medical Association similarly reports that “professional societies representing Australian, Canadian and American pediatricians do not recommend circumcision of male newborns”.
However in 2007 the World Health Organisation released a report suggesting that “the research evidence that circumcision is efficacious in reducing sexual transmission of HIV from women to men is compelling”. That can’t be a bad thing, I mean, who’s going to argue that we shouldn’t be doing everything in our power to stop the spread of HIV around the world?

The reality is that there are other things we can do to prevent the spread of HIV without having to take a knife to new-born boys in developing countries – things like spending more time teaching people about the need to wear condoms – but wait, I don’t want to steal the WHO’s thunder; “Male circumcision should never replace other known methods of HIV prevention and should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV provention package, which includes: prompting delay in the onset of sexual relations, abstinence from penetrative sex and reduction in the number of sexual partners; providing and promoting correct and consistent use of male and female condoms…”

Before we wrap this bad boy up, let’s glance cursorily at Dr. Brian Morris’ website – he’s the guy in the ‘Sunday Night’ video who is advocating the introduction of mandatory circumcision (good luck with that). In amongst a swathe of generally interesting pro-circumcision propaganda I stumbled upon a provocatively titled brochure – ‘Sex and Circumcision – What every woman needs to know’. You see, not only does Dr. Morris advocate the introduction of mandatory circumcision in new-born boys, he also urges women to encourage circumcision in their sexual partners, for the woman’s own wellbeing.

As far as I can tell, of the seven ways that women benefit from a circumcised partner – according to Dr. Morris – five can be achieved just as well by using a condom, one is a generalisation and over-simplification of the sexual preferences and practices of women and the other is a confusing attempt to justify circumcision as a preventative measure for phimosis. Other than that, I reckon it’s a great idea to try to convince your boyfriend to cut part of his dick off, if only for the reaction that would ensue…

Her: Um, baby. You know how I’m always worried about getting diseases and stuff down there?
Him: Down where?
Her: You know…
Him: Oh. Down there.
Her: Yeah, well, there’s this doctor who reckons he can stop me from getting all sorts of nasties.
Him: Yeah? Sounds like a good idea. What’s involved?
Her: Oh nothing much. They just take you into hospital for the afternoon and cut off a chunk of your junk.
Him: I don’t think we should be together...

For those of you who have been living under a rock for the last couple days, there have been a few of the ol’ bush fires around. In the days preceding yesterday’s extreme weather conditions, the Bureau of Meteorology had been predicting the highest fire danger in the state’s history. This is one prediction that they surely wouldn’t have minded getting wrong but alas, they were spot on. Temperatures in Melbourne reached 46.4 degrees celcius, with 47.9 degrees apparently recorded in Avalon. You have to feel a certain degree of pity for those Jetstar passengers who, thinking that they were flying to ‘Melbourne’, arrive at a tiny airstrip an hour’s drive from their destination only to be confronted with the highest temperatures in the state’s history and 100kph winds. Welcome to Victoria.

All silliness aside, it truly has been a horrific couple of days for all those affected by the bushfires and with the death-toll well on it’s way to 100, the events of the last couple days have almost been as deadly as 1939′s ‘Black Friday’ and ‘Ash Wednesday’ combined.
For those of us sitting in air-conditioned houses far from the many fires burning around the state, it is hard to imagine what it must be like to lose everything you have ever owned in just a matter of minutes. We look on with sadness and anguish as our fellow Victorians suffer. We also look on with great admiration and respect toward the tens of thousands of women and men, mostly volunteers, who have given countless hours to fighting the fires, organising relief efforts and supporting the many that have suffered as a result of the fires.

It is in testing times such as these that the difference in quality between the various media outlets becomes most obvious. Where ABC radio in Victoria dedicated it’s entire Saturday to live courage and updates on the fire situation, keeping listeners informed and aware, the commercial television networks’ dramatic coverage play like a cheesy horror film. Words like ‘inferno’, ‘nightmare’, ‘post-apocalyptic’, ‘war zone’ and ‘hell on earth’ are bandied around like they are going out of fashion. One woman on Channel Nine’s coverage this evening even referred to the devestation around her home as being ‘like the Holocaust’.

Furthermore, while interviewing people who have lost everything in the fires might be good to give everyone else a bit of perspective on the issue, surely a bit of sensitivity would be the order of the day? I refer to a specific incident during Channel Seven’s news bulletin last night in which a reporter was interviewing a gentleman who had lost his home and nearly his life in the fire. Obviously quite distressed,the gentleman told the story of how his home had been lost in the flames, before he promptly broke into tears. The reporter replied with the question ‘how are you travelling?‘ Well, I’ve got a couple of ideas. The bloke has just lost his house in the worst bushfires in recorded history and has subsequently broken down into a sobbing mess while explaining the obviously painful situation on camera. But no, he’s doing great, thanks for asking.

Potentially worse than using distraught people in order to create a compelling news package full of human drama is the sort of parochialism that commercial networks are famous for.
Last night, during Channel Seven’s coverage of the bushfires, anchor Jennifer Kyte spent a good ten minutes of the bulletin speaking to a colleague of hers whose house and wife were under threat from the fires, prefaced with the puzzling and almost offensive remark ‘the fires do not discriminate, I speak now with my fellow Channel Seven reporter, …’ (So by virtue of being a reporter with Channel Seven this reporter should, by rights, be less susceptible to suffering, a right which the bushfires somehow circumvented?)

The clearly distressed reporter explained to Kyte and those watching that he had no idea if his house would survive the blaze and, in between ferocious sobs, explained that his wife’s fate was also unknown. Now I don’t mean to sound harsh – I’m sure the reporter was genuinely mortified at the prospect of losing his wife and to a lesser extent his home – but the scenario faced by the gentleman in question was by no means unique and it is only by virtue of his employment with Channel Seven that the aforementioned interview made it to air. Would Channel Seven have aired a ten minute segment for every man who was worried about losing his home and/or wife? I think we know the answer to that one.

The Channel Nine ‘family’ appears to have suffered to an even greater extent, losing former anchorman Brian Naylor to the fire burning in and around Kinglake. Much like Channel Seven the previous evening, Nine spent the best part of fifteen minutes this evening reporting on the apparent death of Naylor, the two reporters in question remarking how ‘he always had his phone on and we had a sick feeling in our stomachs as we called him on our way up the mountain and he didn’t answer’, how great a bloke he was, and how ‘there was no way he would have left his wife’s side‘. I don’t doubt that he will be sorely missed and that Channel Nine felt a responsibility to honour their past champion, but what about the other 83 people who are confirmed dead? How many ‘good blokes’ are among that lot? Where is their fifteen minutes of fame? How many other people have tried to call family and friends and been confronted with chillingly happy answering machine messenges?

The real vitriol should perhaps be directed at the arsonists who are allegedly responsible for a number of the fires. One of the largest of the fires, the one responsible for Brian Naylor’s death, was allegedly lit by an arsonist and has now taken over a dozen lives and around 500 homes. It takes a special kind of person to light a fire in a thickly forested area like that, knowing that extreme temperatures and heavy winds will spread the blaze beyond control. Premier Brumby recently announced a dramatic increase in jail sentences for those that start fires – from two years up to the current sentence of 15 years – and for those that start fires that result in the loss of life, 25 years behind bars can be expected.

To everyone affected by the fires of the last couple days, our thoughts are with you and we hope for a speedy end to your suffering. To the people of Marysville and Kinglake, we wish you all the best during the slow and painful rebuilding process and we look forward to visiting you and your amazing communities again soon…