 |
| Safe to say coffee won't be going near my laptop again! |
There have been a lot of interesting things going on in my
absence including but not limited to, the rise of Donald Trump, the Medicare
scandal and most famously the Brexit decision. There are a lot of legal issues
associated with them, but the most common thread between all of them is
misinformation causing a false overall decision.
It is the general rule that you cannot intentionally
misinform the public without some consequence for your mistake. We witness this
most commonly through media shows like today tonight or consumer affairs, which
publicly shame businesses for misinforming the public producing a false or
unfair result. A couple of years ago a juice company Ribena was rebuked after
its ‘black current health drink’, promoted to children and their families, was
shown to be incredibly unhealthy. The drink deliberately misled parents to
believe that it was safe to consume regularly when in actuality it could have
harmful effects on health if regularly consumed without a healthy diet and
regular exercise.
I am sure there are much more examples of penalties for
companies that misinform the public.
 |
| The law may seem boring, but it is important for maintaining an equitable society |
However, despite penalties existing for
businesses, a cone of immunity surrounds the political arena and its delegates.
It is fair to say that the most watched democracies; namely the USA and the UK
have been the largest culprits of these political scandals. Obviously, there
must be some level of inducement made by political parties to promote their
message. However, surely it must stop short of behavior that would be
unacceptable anywhere else, like lying or harassment. I would like to pick this
topic up later as I feel there are many more sides to this argument.
This situation does bring up the question of freedom of
speech. When electing politicians, you would think that you would want to give
them the freedom to speak openly. However, this privilege is
clearly being
abused, especially in America where the constraints on freedom of speech are so
minimal that you could just about defame anyone as long as you have the money
to defend yourself. Which is probably why Donald Trump has not been sued for
making inappropriate and defamatory public statements such as;
‘Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.'
‘Ariana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out.'
‘It does not matter what the media write as long as you have
got a young and beautiful, piece of ass.'
‘If I were running ‘The View’ I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I
mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie,
you’re fired.’”
‘The only card [Hilary Cinton] has is the woman’s card.
She’s got nothing else to offer and, frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I
don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.’
In all of these quotes, Trump either directly defames a
famous person or an entire industry. If you do some research, you will find
that Trump has managed to escape liability for all of these statements almost
entirely.
 |
| A lot of what Trump says makes me think of 'Let them eat cake' - Marie Antoinette |
I say almost because the one point at which Trump has
suffered and I am sure you will all agree is his personal brand. A personal
brand is a term usually referring to a person’s professional reputation and
transferring it into a market value. Every person has a personal brand, and you
may use it when applying for a job, writing an article or networking at a
professional event. Merely mentioning ‘Trump’ can end an entire conversation.
His reputation is so socially damaged that some would suggest that it was
irreparable.
Terrifyingly, America has continued to support this
political figure, despite multiple outrageous and inappropriate statements.
Some propose that he is only popular because it is a way of people protesting
against the weak leadership shown by other candidates indicating the public’s
disillusionment with the overall political system. The landside backing of
Barack Obama supports this theory– who, although had a high level of integrity,
showed strong leadership and distinction in his policies. This can sway public
opinion significantly.
It concerns me that this bears a striking similarity to the
Brexit result. I will not give my opinion on the final result because I would
prefer to perform an analysis of the actual events leading up to it. The Brexit was fraught with both
misinformation and public confusion. The high level of disillusion in Britain
with the decisions of the European Union in the past and the lack of democratic
influence that they had over Brussels led to uncertainty about the actual consequences
of the decision.
Some individuals were able to inform themselves about the
role of the European Union and investigated in depth the effects that the
British leaving the European Union would have. Yet the majority of people
relied upon the media and its coverage of politicians to determine who they
would vote for. Similar as to what occurred in Australia during the Medicare
Scandal of 2016, one issue led the decision because of media sensationalism.
Immigration.
Immigration is a contentious problem that has advantages and
disadvantages on both sides. It would be unreasonable to suggest that migration
does not come with difficulties. Every culture from Africa to Britain has its
quirks and melding one culture with another will undoubtedly cause conflict.
Therefore, finding cultures that are similar are imperative for positive
migration with minimal conflict.
Some may suggest that the geographical location of European
countries infers a cultural similarity. However, such a suggestion is outdated
and ridiculous. Russians and Britains are not similar despite sharing a continent.
Same as Norway and Germany are not similar despite sharing a border.
Australians and Britains have a culture that is relatively similar despite a
geographical distance. The same is true for Canadians and Australians.
 |
| History and culture are part of who we are and should not be ignored when seeking a new homeland |
The history shared by the countries has created a similar
culture that allows for the blending of the three of them to be as simple as
possible. Therefore, thought needs to be given to the culture and habits of the
country to which migrants are traveling. It is terrifying enough to move
countries, and I am sure that anyone who has visited other countries knows the
relief of coming to a country which bears similarity to its own. It is not
racist or insensitive to suggest that the common characteristics of cultures
should be matched to another country for refugee migration but a practical
consideration for better immigration.
However, it does leave open the issue of diversity.
Diversity encourages the development of thought and broader value appreciation.
In fact, Australia has benefited from the integration of cultures like the
Italian, Greek and Vietnamese. This migration did not come without issues and
occurred in numbers that were carefully monitored by the Australian government.
It does not take much research to discover the racist rebuke
of Australia towards the influx of migrants. It was not long ago that Australia
sported a ‘white Australia’ policy, which operated to prevent the flow of
undesired migrants into the country.
While the application of the policy was culturally insensitive
and disappointing in reality, the theory is sound. The original idea behind it
was that Australia would apply a selective process to determine the
characteristics of entrants into the country that would suit the ideology of
Australian culture. This process preserves the idiosyncrasies that make up a
diverse culture while ensuring that there was a thread of commonality that
maintained the national image of Australia.
It was the same concern that drove the disillusionment of
the British people. In a belief that their national image was under threat with
the influx of unknown and potentially radically different migrants a reactive
protest resulted in Britain leaving the European Union.
The concern, however, is that the people of Britain did not
understand the true nature or impact of their vote. A false understanding was promoted
to the public at mass by political parties such as the Independence Party – with
political member Boris Johnson.
The ex-Mayor of London was so confident in his false
promotions that he drove around on a bright red bus proclaiming that leaving
the European Union would give the NHS 350 Million pounds extra a week.
Unsurprisingly, this was later denied to be true by Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage
is a British Political, who is the leader of the Independence Party.
One would assume that the head of the independence party
would have prevented the overzealous Boris Johnson from spreading
misinformation. However, it appears that in this battle, it was more about
getting votes for their party than actually informing the public.
This cruel tactic may sound familiar to Australians who
recently found themselves at the mercy of the Labor party. Bill Shorten, the
leader of the Labor Party, pitched a claim to the public that the Liberal Party
had plans to privatize Medicare.
 |
| Researching is a serious business ;) |
As a country that has prided itself on the provision of
healthcare to all in need, it is understandable why the public reacted so
violently to the claim. Similar to the Brexit this was not the only issue at
hand, as the economic future of Australia was also important. Through media
tactics, the Medicare scare quickly took hold in the minds of most Australians
preventing other relevant discussions from taking place.
What is evident in all three situations is that there is
fast becoming a culture of sensationalism in politics. Democracies will always
run the risk of erring too closely to an ‘American Idol’ type contest, where
popularity determines the winner and not political sense. It is evident that
currently, the media is taking a front seat in driving politics away from an
objective debate to a reality television style throw down.
It would be inappropriate to ban the media from
participating in election campaigns. Freedom of speech is perpetuated by the
press and should never be lost. It was a right that democracies around the
globe fought for by the people. They did not fight for the right to spread
misinformation and I am shocked to see this occurring around the globe.
