With the Federal Election now two weeks old and yet to deliver a government, I thought now would be a chance to look at the education policies, such as as they, of the people purporting to represent the best interests of our nation.
Sure, I should have done this prior to the election. Who knows, this post could have achieved cult status and swayed the results in key marginal seats. I'm not taking responsibility for the hung parliament but I'm just pointing out that this should have been done beforehand. Better late than never.
Perhaps the reason why I didn't do it before (rampant laziness aside) is that Education scarcely rated a mention from either of the main parties.
Let's have a look at the ALP's site shall we?
To be fair the ALP's agenda (see http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/) has a whole section on a National Curriculum and an Australian Baccalaureate. The National Curriculum is actually good, as it has allowed for an ATAR (Australian Tertiary Admissions Rank) for all Australians looking to enter University (except Queenslanders). As long as they actually take the best bits from all the state curricula, as oppose to just pandering to stronger lobbying from individual states, a national curriculum is good. It means that people can move to WA to take advantage of the minerals boom (for example) without stuffing up their kid's education (assuming you don't think bringing your kids up amongst rednecks won't stuff up their education).
The Australian Baccalaureate is "a new voluntary qualification that provides senior students with access to a credential of international standing – similar to national certificates like the British ‘A’ Levels and French Baccalaureate, the German and Finnish Arbitur, and the certificates of Australia’s regional neighbours." What I think is happening is that the ALP have been overwhelmed by Greg Valentine, the Australasian manager of the International Baccalaureate's, message that the IB is so much better than our current HSC and equivalents. Private and selective schools now offer the IB as an alternative to the HSC. Great. So why the fuck don't they just make the HSC, TCE, WACE, VCE etc the Australian Certificate of Education? After all, the A levels are actually the Advanced Level General Certificate of Education.
If we develop a national curriculum we can have an Australia-wide Certificate of Education, and the AB becomes somewhat redundant. I think anyway.
But, back to the point. I looked through the ALP's agenda site and couldn't find anything. It wasn't under 'Creating Jobs and Skills,' 'Science' and a couple of other agendas and the word 'University' isn't even used. How can you have a fucking Science or Skills policy that ignores higher education. Fuck!
What to the Liberals have in store?
For a start it took ages to open their site. www.liberal.org.au doesn't seem to work. Oops. I wonder whether that was like that during the election. Would we have had a hung parliament if their site worked, or were they worried treasury officials might look at their site and spot bullshit figures earlier than they did?
OK, So I went to Tony Abbott's website (http://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/house-of-representatives/tony-abbott.html) to see if he could help and found the Federal Action Plan.
Tony has Strong Plans (none of those weak as piss Labor plans) for everything. Including Higher Education. This is 12 pages if you include a title page but worryingly the opening page looks at Higher Education as an income earner (like coal).
More worrying however is that they want to bring back in full-fee places. These came in under Howard and the Liberals believe that all Australians should have "the option of paying for their own education at public universities." Just like international students. What they don't make clear is that universities let in Australians with the means to pay full fees (around 2 or 3 times HECS contributions) who also didn't get the marks required to access Commonwealth Supported Places. So the message is if your parents are loaded you don't need to be as clever. Nice one! So not only can they gain all the advantages of private education such as higher staff:student ratios, better learning resources, Army Cadet programs (they must be good for something) and learning how to wear a Boater Hat; rich kids under the Liberals also benefit from not needing to do as well as their poorer peers at School.
If this wasn't enough to make them look like fuckwits, they also plan to scrap the $433 million Labor Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program to increase participation by students from low SES backgrounds. Their thoughts are that it isn't supply but demand that is the problem. So let's just encourage poor primary students to believe that they can get to uni, even though they know they will have to score an ATAR up to 5 points higher than rich kids to do the same course because their parents can't afford to pay Full Fees. Clearly for rich kids the problem is supply, not demand.
The Liberal's plan seems to assume that just assuring Indian parents that their kids will be safe will solve all our challenges in recruiting international students. It ignores increased competition from the UK, US and other markets. It ignores the fact that China,our strongest market, is increasingly becoming capable of educating their students. It ignores the fact that a high AUD makes us less competitive internationally. And it ignores the fact that what drives demand is the quality of the institutions, and that dollars. However, there is no extra funding promised for universities. The extra funding is coming from growing international student numbers, attracted to Australia by our well-funded higher education system. Am I the only one who can see the flaw in that logic?
So the Liberals have a Higher Education policy proudly posted on their site, but all it really does is go back to what they had before Rudd. And during Howard's Prime Ministership, let us not forget that we went backwards in terms of investment in Higher Education (see an article by UWA's Professor da Sliva Rosa on this at http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201008192781/higer-education/australia-s-real-deficit-higher-education-finance-expert).
So neither the ALP nor the Liberals seem too focused on making us a clever country.
What do the Greens think?
The Greens education policy is fittingly found under the category 'Care for People' and states that "universities are places of learning and research where the needs of the whole community and the values of service to the public and scholarship take priority over sectional and commercial interests and academic freedom is protected." Which is a nice statement but isn't a policy as such, just a desire. They also want "free university education for Australian citizens, permanent residents and refugees." The advantage for the Greens is that they can want this but don't have to cost it up. So how much would this all cost to implement? I couldn't find it on their website and odds are they have no idea. Who cares - they will never govern in their own right so don't need to worry about that. They just need to push people towards thinking along those lines. It is a refreshing change from the other parties but isn't rounded out enough to be a policy. Sorry Greens.
So basically, no election is ever going to be won or lost over the issue of higher education. Why? Is it because it doesn't effect enough people? Hardly. With plans for up to 25% of young people going to university it effects a shit load more people than say 'boat people.' Who amongst us have had a beach picnic ruined by the arrival of refugees in the middle of it. Not many? What are the costs to the nation of people arriving unannounced on our shores. Shit all really. But it is much more exciting footage to show politicians looking tough on the bridge of a patrol boat than it is to show them looking smart at a university campus.
Higher education is not an issue because on the surface it seems to work OK. Sure now kids graduate with a lifetime of HECS debt and the whole funding model relies on being subsidised by international students, and we will have a critical shortage of potential academics, and campuses are overcrowded etc but no students are protesting and making noise. Why? because partly they are too busy working to support themselves and partly because they are so worried about a massive debt that education is about return on investment, and that means just studying and participating in something that will help you get a job.
Damn.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Why the school system is fucked
Just to set the record straight, I am not one of those wingy "I could have been a brain surgeon but the system failed me" types. I did reasonably well at school given my modest talent and even more modest efforts in applying said talent. Nor am I one of those "where's the Latin" curriculum conservatives that try to stifle any developments in learning new sciences. My 11 year old son is doing much harder work than I did at his age across maths, history and English.
No, my problem is with the system of local versus selective and private high schools.
Parents have a choice of up to four options for their children, depending on their ability.
Option 1: Private School
Private School parents come in two types - those who harbour fond memories of their own private school days, the thrill of watching fellow students publicly spanked for doing a four-in-the-hand knot instead of the regulation half-windsor, the character building exercise of having to lick the sweat off the scrotum of their sadistic year 11 Cadet Sergeant during military camp, attending old-boy reunions to compare merchant banking career profiles and the like; and those who didn't attend private school but who are scared shitless that unless they sent little Sebastian to a private school he will end up a drug addict, or, even worse, a tradesman.
For a small investment of anywhere between $4000 and $25,000 per year (which equates to somewhere between $21 and $131 per school day not counting cheering on the First 11 on Saturdays), plus uniforms, 'voluntary' building funds (to help refurbish the stadium overlooking No 2 Oval), non-refundable application and waiting list fees, excursions ("but Daddy everyone else is going to the Louvre"), parents ensure that little Sebastian is given an edge over his poorer cousins not only academically but from being instilled with the values that will ensure success and happiness.
Which is great, because it means it is no longer parents' responsibilities to stop their kids growing up into complete fuckwits. And what values do they gain? One exclusive school for boys covering a sizable percentage of Sydney's inner west, claims to be centred on motivating boys "to be well-rounded individuals, fully prepared for the rigours of adulthood in the twenty-first century." Apparently, they "are a diverse community and ... celebrate the fact that our College truly represents the cosmopolitan nature of our modern society ... this means a genuine experience of the ‘real world’ that they will work and live in after school."
By diversity we mean ethnic, rather than economic, and I can only assume 'real world' refers to the train trip to and from school in which the lads, weighed down by immense baggage including sports gear, laptops and servants, take the seats of full-paying passengers; a wonderful lesson in entitlement within the real world.
Fees at the upper end of private schools range from only $12,468 at Kindergarten where little Sterling can learn how to wear a Boater hat at an appropriately jaunty angle and grow to up to $23,454 in years 11 and 12 where he can benefit from a wide curriculum choice plus staff paid to assist with applying for scholarships at universities. Add to this a $3908 enrolment fee (but to be fair this is a one off) plus various levies and that leaves you with a cost of $261,236 at 2010 prices to ensure your boy's success, not counting excursions, uniforms, bags, sports gear, new car ("you can't seriously expect me to drive into the school car park in that junker can you?").
Of course, the grounds and facilities are impressive; there are European Principalities smaller than the sprawling grounds of Kings, located in the geographic centre of Sydney. The smartness of the boys' braided uniforms make officer cadets at Duntroon look like extras from a mob scene in a Frankenstein movie. And the Principal, Dr Timothy Hawkes is one of the most respected minds on adolescent boy education. But then I remember as a child being part of my local public school band and beating The Kings School band in a state-wide competition. Not sure if their music program has improved since then but there you have it.
Fees here include lifetime membership of the Old Boys' Union. Wonderful.
Young ladies aren't ignored, with Ladies' Colleges of every denomination dotted around Sydney. Here young impressionable females are cocooned away from the spoiling influences of young boys and are instilled with a God-given expectations of success.
There are a tiny number of coed private schools, IGS, SCECGS Redlands for instance, that allow boys and girls to grow up together, bucking the trend towards single-sex schools. This is just one of the 'innovative' new takes on private education that provide 'real world' experiences for rich kids.
Those wanting private schools but who don't love their kids enough to invest a quarter of a million dollars in their education can go to the second tier of private education, provided they can pretend to be Catholic for a sufficiently long time. Then there are also other Christian denomination schools, from Greek Orthodox to Pentecostal. These may not give your kids a good education but it at leasts saves them from having to question their religious beliefs with messy topics like history, science etc. And growing up with a good clean Christian ethos means your daughter is less likely to lose her virginity in high school. Apparently.
Option 2: Selective Schools
Here's a novel idea. Set up a test that identifies both the most academically gifted kids and the one's whose parents have hot-housed them to pass the selective school test. Then take all these kids away from all the other kids who either didn't sit for the exam or didn't quite make the cut. Then, when the HSC results come out six years later, you can claim it is a result of brilliant teaching, rather than the fact that these bright kids would have performed anywhere.
Sydney has a number of selective schools to choose from. James Ruse Agricultural College is the one to beat in terms of arrogance and HSC results. Others include Fort Street, North Sydney Girls, Sydney High, Manly and more.
Some schools have a selective stream, so they are like local schools but half the students are not local but have demonstrated excellence academically (Sydney Secondary College), arts (Dulwich High, Newtown High) or sports (Narrabeen) etc.
Now, I seem to remember when I went to school, you were streamed into a year 7 class based on your results from year 6, but went to the same school as everyone else, regardless of relative ability. You didn't get cocooned away and if you reached your potential after year 6, you still managed to get into a top class, based on your ability, in later years.
Now parents are bludgeoned into thinking that the Selective High Schools exam is their only hope. If your child freaks out in the exam, held in March in their Year 6, then its all over. He or she will go to a the shit local school and never excel because everyone knows how shit comprehensive schools are, right?
So smart little Kenneth, whose parents put him through years of coaching on how to pass the various skills tests that form the Selective High Schools Exam, gets to leave all his other public primary school mates behind as he boards the bus or train to a selective high school miles from his home. His uniform tells all around him that he has been marked out as special, gifted no less. So again he feels happy in not having to stand up for pregnant women on buses because everyone knows he's been studying all night and way too tired for such niceties.
And when Kenneth, does do well at school, his school can take most of the credit, and ignore the fact that he would have scored well regardless of where he went, especially if all the local schools still had bright kids he could learn and play dungeons and dragons with.
Option 3: Local comprehensive schools
The remaining parents are left with sending their kids to local comprehensive schools. More and more of these are single-sex, which is great because it stops young boys from creating friendships with girls and ensures they will see them as sex partners only (although to be fair, most boys will see all non-related girls as potential sex partners regardless of whether they are school friends or not).
Now, just imagine what comprehensive schools are like, given that the wealthiest and most talented kids have been creamed off. That's right: they are a hotbed of drugs, vice, and disrespect where your child will just be trying to stay alive, rather than focused on learning.
Or, maybe they are a reflection of the broad cross section of your local community. It depends on the area and the parents. In the inner west of Sydney, there are so many selective and private options that 'caring' parents hardly even consider the local schools. Further out, where any non-local option will involve a one-hour commute, you could be forgiven for sending your child to the local school.
My solution
It is a bit radical, but my solution is to abolish selective schools, and remove federal funding for private schools. If your child is smart, they get streamed into the top class of the local high school, and then they have to keep earning their place in that class every year. Similarly, if you have a bad year, you get another crack at it, but at least your child will be learning with other similarly driven students.
Private schools can go fuck themselves. If they want to provide an alternative to government run and funded schools, good on them, but they should get no funding from governments. That extra funding should go towards supporting government schools instead. Of course this means fees will get even higher, which will kill off some demand for private school, especially from middle class parents double-mortgaging their house to pay for fees. But this is good. First, they will save their money. Secondly, it limits private school attendance to the truly financially elite (the ones who probably pay a lower percentage of income in tax because they put it into trust funds etc, thereby killing off the argument that their taxes are paying for other kids' education) who will then know that their child is mingling with the top, not in some muddied water washpool of the upper half of society.
Just an idea anyway...
No, my problem is with the system of local versus selective and private high schools.
Parents have a choice of up to four options for their children, depending on their ability.
Option 1: Private School
Private School parents come in two types - those who harbour fond memories of their own private school days, the thrill of watching fellow students publicly spanked for doing a four-in-the-hand knot instead of the regulation half-windsor, the character building exercise of having to lick the sweat off the scrotum of their sadistic year 11 Cadet Sergeant during military camp, attending old-boy reunions to compare merchant banking career profiles and the like; and those who didn't attend private school but who are scared shitless that unless they sent little Sebastian to a private school he will end up a drug addict, or, even worse, a tradesman.
For a small investment of anywhere between $4000 and $25,000 per year (which equates to somewhere between $21 and $131 per school day not counting cheering on the First 11 on Saturdays), plus uniforms, 'voluntary' building funds (to help refurbish the stadium overlooking No 2 Oval), non-refundable application and waiting list fees, excursions ("but Daddy everyone else is going to the Louvre"), parents ensure that little Sebastian is given an edge over his poorer cousins not only academically but from being instilled with the values that will ensure success and happiness.
Which is great, because it means it is no longer parents' responsibilities to stop their kids growing up into complete fuckwits. And what values do they gain? One exclusive school for boys covering a sizable percentage of Sydney's inner west, claims to be centred on motivating boys "to be well-rounded individuals, fully prepared for the rigours of adulthood in the twenty-first century." Apparently, they "are a diverse community and ... celebrate the fact that our College truly represents the cosmopolitan nature of our modern society ... this means a genuine experience of the ‘real world’ that they will work and live in after school."
By diversity we mean ethnic, rather than economic, and I can only assume 'real world' refers to the train trip to and from school in which the lads, weighed down by immense baggage including sports gear, laptops and servants, take the seats of full-paying passengers; a wonderful lesson in entitlement within the real world.
Fees at the upper end of private schools range from only $12,468 at Kindergarten where little Sterling can learn how to wear a Boater hat at an appropriately jaunty angle and grow to up to $23,454 in years 11 and 12 where he can benefit from a wide curriculum choice plus staff paid to assist with applying for scholarships at universities. Add to this a $3908 enrolment fee (but to be fair this is a one off) plus various levies and that leaves you with a cost of $261,236 at 2010 prices to ensure your boy's success, not counting excursions, uniforms, bags, sports gear, new car ("you can't seriously expect me to drive into the school car park in that junker can you?").
Of course, the grounds and facilities are impressive; there are European Principalities smaller than the sprawling grounds of Kings, located in the geographic centre of Sydney. The smartness of the boys' braided uniforms make officer cadets at Duntroon look like extras from a mob scene in a Frankenstein movie. And the Principal, Dr Timothy Hawkes is one of the most respected minds on adolescent boy education. But then I remember as a child being part of my local public school band and beating The Kings School band in a state-wide competition. Not sure if their music program has improved since then but there you have it.
Fees here include lifetime membership of the Old Boys' Union. Wonderful.
Young ladies aren't ignored, with Ladies' Colleges of every denomination dotted around Sydney. Here young impressionable females are cocooned away from the spoiling influences of young boys and are instilled with a God-given expectations of success.
There are a tiny number of coed private schools, IGS, SCECGS Redlands for instance, that allow boys and girls to grow up together, bucking the trend towards single-sex schools. This is just one of the 'innovative' new takes on private education that provide 'real world' experiences for rich kids.
Those wanting private schools but who don't love their kids enough to invest a quarter of a million dollars in their education can go to the second tier of private education, provided they can pretend to be Catholic for a sufficiently long time. Then there are also other Christian denomination schools, from Greek Orthodox to Pentecostal. These may not give your kids a good education but it at leasts saves them from having to question their religious beliefs with messy topics like history, science etc. And growing up with a good clean Christian ethos means your daughter is less likely to lose her virginity in high school. Apparently.
Option 2: Selective Schools
Here's a novel idea. Set up a test that identifies both the most academically gifted kids and the one's whose parents have hot-housed them to pass the selective school test. Then take all these kids away from all the other kids who either didn't sit for the exam or didn't quite make the cut. Then, when the HSC results come out six years later, you can claim it is a result of brilliant teaching, rather than the fact that these bright kids would have performed anywhere.
Sydney has a number of selective schools to choose from. James Ruse Agricultural College is the one to beat in terms of arrogance and HSC results. Others include Fort Street, North Sydney Girls, Sydney High, Manly and more.
Some schools have a selective stream, so they are like local schools but half the students are not local but have demonstrated excellence academically (Sydney Secondary College), arts (Dulwich High, Newtown High) or sports (Narrabeen) etc.
Now, I seem to remember when I went to school, you were streamed into a year 7 class based on your results from year 6, but went to the same school as everyone else, regardless of relative ability. You didn't get cocooned away and if you reached your potential after year 6, you still managed to get into a top class, based on your ability, in later years.
Now parents are bludgeoned into thinking that the Selective High Schools exam is their only hope. If your child freaks out in the exam, held in March in their Year 6, then its all over. He or she will go to a the shit local school and never excel because everyone knows how shit comprehensive schools are, right?
So smart little Kenneth, whose parents put him through years of coaching on how to pass the various skills tests that form the Selective High Schools Exam, gets to leave all his other public primary school mates behind as he boards the bus or train to a selective high school miles from his home. His uniform tells all around him that he has been marked out as special, gifted no less. So again he feels happy in not having to stand up for pregnant women on buses because everyone knows he's been studying all night and way too tired for such niceties.
And when Kenneth, does do well at school, his school can take most of the credit, and ignore the fact that he would have scored well regardless of where he went, especially if all the local schools still had bright kids he could learn and play dungeons and dragons with.
Option 3: Local comprehensive schools
The remaining parents are left with sending their kids to local comprehensive schools. More and more of these are single-sex, which is great because it stops young boys from creating friendships with girls and ensures they will see them as sex partners only (although to be fair, most boys will see all non-related girls as potential sex partners regardless of whether they are school friends or not).
Now, just imagine what comprehensive schools are like, given that the wealthiest and most talented kids have been creamed off. That's right: they are a hotbed of drugs, vice, and disrespect where your child will just be trying to stay alive, rather than focused on learning.
Or, maybe they are a reflection of the broad cross section of your local community. It depends on the area and the parents. In the inner west of Sydney, there are so many selective and private options that 'caring' parents hardly even consider the local schools. Further out, where any non-local option will involve a one-hour commute, you could be forgiven for sending your child to the local school.
My solution
It is a bit radical, but my solution is to abolish selective schools, and remove federal funding for private schools. If your child is smart, they get streamed into the top class of the local high school, and then they have to keep earning their place in that class every year. Similarly, if you have a bad year, you get another crack at it, but at least your child will be learning with other similarly driven students.
Private schools can go fuck themselves. If they want to provide an alternative to government run and funded schools, good on them, but they should get no funding from governments. That extra funding should go towards supporting government schools instead. Of course this means fees will get even higher, which will kill off some demand for private school, especially from middle class parents double-mortgaging their house to pay for fees. But this is good. First, they will save their money. Secondly, it limits private school attendance to the truly financially elite (the ones who probably pay a lower percentage of income in tax because they put it into trust funds etc, thereby killing off the argument that their taxes are paying for other kids' education) who will then know that their child is mingling with the top, not in some muddied water washpool of the upper half of society.
Just an idea anyway...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Why Vega failed
Newsflash from the media world: Sydney and Melbourne's experiment in Gen X radio, Vega, has had the plug pulled from its life support machine.
Vega, owned and managed by dmgRadio Australia, who also run the more successful Nova radio stations, has been replaced by the innovative 'Classic Hits' a station that will break new ground in radio entertainment by playing tried and tested classics from the 60s to now.
If memory serves, and this is supported by an article in The Age, when the station launched in 2005, it would provide Gen Xers with a wide variety of music combined with witty fellow Gen Xers (merging to Baby-boomers) such as Shaun Micallef, Tony Squires, Wendy Harmer and Francis Leach. The idea was to provide music for people who had grown up and out of Triple M.
The problem is, people who grew up listening to Triple M still listen to Triple M (I shit you not, when ACDC toured recently they played 'back to backer Acker Dacker'). So pretty much nobody listend to Vega. The Chaser's War on Everything parodied this dilemma perfectly by bringing the entire Vega audience (ie a minivan worth of people) into Vega 95.3's Sydney studio for a focus group and to reduce broadcasting costs.
Apparently the format was right - people wanted talk and music - but people didn't convert intent to action and DMG were not prepared to make a loss for more than five years. But, this is what my view is as to why it failed, and I speak not as an authority on radio ratings or entertainment but as someone fast approaching the 40 to 54 age market targeted by the station.
It played fucking awful, bland, music.
For some reason, Vega's programmers decided that although when you were twenty you liked Eric B and Rakim, De La Soul, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and other bands you thought made you a bit edgy, a little bit 'street,' for some reason, Vega think I want to hear fucking Billy Joel, Genesis or Maria fucking Carey. Let me tell you something. I hated Billy Joel as soon as I was old enough to know who he was. The only even remote enjoyment I have ever received from Billy Joel is when the afore mentioned Francis Leach, on the also afore mentioned Shaun Micallef did a version of Piano Man, on Guitar.
My nearly 40 year old ears do not want to hear 'Uptown Girl' any more now than they did in their teens. In fact, if anything, my ear's tastebuds have become even more discerning as I age. I bought a Genesis album once (once is a mistake, twice you are a fan) on the strength of listening to one song that was not too horrible. I would never do that now.
Life is too short to listen to shit music.
People in their 40's have precious little time for themselves. Between listening to their kid's poor music taste (mine have mercifully grown out of Wiggles and Crazy Frog) and even poorer music ability ('talent night' anyone?), work commitments, socialising etc, there is probably only about one hour a day, if that, where people like me can listen their choice of music. The average song from the Titanic soundtrack goes for 6 minutes. So what with advertisements, back announcements, witty repartee and news, that is probably 20% of my listening time wasted. Fuck that, I'll listen to my Ipod instead where I hear only my choice of music. Sure, I miss out on news but I get that online anyway. And it is hardly like I will miss out on hearing my next favourite new song on Vega - only the tried and tested get there unless Elton Jon releases a new album.
Here's an idea I guarantee will work.
Dig out what Triple J was playing between 1986 and say, 1995 or even 2000. Then find all the retired Triple J presenters who went on to ABC702 for grown-ups and offer them the opportunity to play good music again, with commentary. Call it Triple X so Gen X people know it is for them, and watch the ratings roll in.
40+ people only stop listening to Triple J because:
There must be hundreds of thousands of people like me in Australia, all crying out for a station that doesn't avoid "weird, unfamiliar stuff" hosted by fuck wads like Alice Cooper (really, is this the best we, and he, can do?) or Ian 'Dicko' Dickerson. Let's make it happen...
Vega, owned and managed by dmgRadio Australia, who also run the more successful Nova radio stations, has been replaced by the innovative 'Classic Hits' a station that will break new ground in radio entertainment by playing tried and tested classics from the 60s to now.
If memory serves, and this is supported by an article in The Age, when the station launched in 2005, it would provide Gen Xers with a wide variety of music combined with witty fellow Gen Xers (merging to Baby-boomers) such as Shaun Micallef, Tony Squires, Wendy Harmer and Francis Leach. The idea was to provide music for people who had grown up and out of Triple M.
The problem is, people who grew up listening to Triple M still listen to Triple M (I shit you not, when ACDC toured recently they played 'back to backer Acker Dacker'). So pretty much nobody listend to Vega. The Chaser's War on Everything parodied this dilemma perfectly by bringing the entire Vega audience (ie a minivan worth of people) into Vega 95.3's Sydney studio for a focus group and to reduce broadcasting costs.
Apparently the format was right - people wanted talk and music - but people didn't convert intent to action and DMG were not prepared to make a loss for more than five years. But, this is what my view is as to why it failed, and I speak not as an authority on radio ratings or entertainment but as someone fast approaching the 40 to 54 age market targeted by the station.
It played fucking awful, bland, music.
For some reason, Vega's programmers decided that although when you were twenty you liked Eric B and Rakim, De La Soul, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds and other bands you thought made you a bit edgy, a little bit 'street,' for some reason, Vega think I want to hear fucking Billy Joel, Genesis or Maria fucking Carey. Let me tell you something. I hated Billy Joel as soon as I was old enough to know who he was. The only even remote enjoyment I have ever received from Billy Joel is when the afore mentioned Francis Leach, on the also afore mentioned Shaun Micallef did a version of Piano Man, on Guitar.
My nearly 40 year old ears do not want to hear 'Uptown Girl' any more now than they did in their teens. In fact, if anything, my ear's tastebuds have become even more discerning as I age. I bought a Genesis album once (once is a mistake, twice you are a fan) on the strength of listening to one song that was not too horrible. I would never do that now.
Life is too short to listen to shit music.
People in their 40's have precious little time for themselves. Between listening to their kid's poor music taste (mine have mercifully grown out of Wiggles and Crazy Frog) and even poorer music ability ('talent night' anyone?), work commitments, socialising etc, there is probably only about one hour a day, if that, where people like me can listen their choice of music. The average song from the Titanic soundtrack goes for 6 minutes. So what with advertisements, back announcements, witty repartee and news, that is probably 20% of my listening time wasted. Fuck that, I'll listen to my Ipod instead where I hear only my choice of music. Sure, I miss out on news but I get that online anyway. And it is hardly like I will miss out on hearing my next favourite new song on Vega - only the tried and tested get there unless Elton Jon releases a new album.
Here's an idea I guarantee will work.
Dig out what Triple J was playing between 1986 and say, 1995 or even 2000. Then find all the retired Triple J presenters who went on to ABC702 for grown-ups and offer them the opportunity to play good music again, with commentary. Call it Triple X so Gen X people know it is for them, and watch the ratings roll in.
40+ people only stop listening to Triple J because:
- since Adam Spencer and Wil Anderson left there have been no decent breakfast announcers (no disrespect to Marieke Hardy);
- Triple J seem obsessed with unearthing Indy bands regardless of talent - with god awful guitar riffs by talentless shits that never would have received air time 20 years ago;
- it's awkward explaining the lyrics of Butter Fingers "ya mama" to an eight year old boy;
- they look tragic listening to Triple J at their age.
There must be hundreds of thousands of people like me in Australia, all crying out for a station that doesn't avoid "weird, unfamiliar stuff" hosted by fuck wads like Alice Cooper (really, is this the best we, and he, can do?) or Ian 'Dicko' Dickerson. Let's make it happen...
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Why Piers Akerman is a fuck stick
Harsh words for my first post but I feel rather strongly about this. For those people blissfully unaware of who Piers Akerman is, he is a 3rd rate 'journalist' for News Ltd's highly esteemed tabloid the Daily Telegraph.
I use the term 'journalist' here in the broadest possible definition of the word. He is no more a journalist than I am a neurosurgeon. The only difference is that I am not paid considerable amounts of money to conduct neurosurgery, whereas Piers receives at least award wage for his Opinion pieces.
Piers tends to focus on one of three conservative topics in each of his pieces, although sometimes these overlap and the reader is treated to a trifecta of hatred from his pen. Here are the topics:
Lest you think I am being overly simplistic here. I wasted some time analysing Piers' columns so far this year. One day when I have nothing better to do, I will replicate this for all his online work. Here is the breakdown of topics covered in the 23 articles written to 15 March 2010:
Early on, Piers would allow people to post pretty much anything other than defamatory comments that would get him in the shit. You could write in and disagree with him, he would retort with a 'witty' comment that would usually ignore the issue you were raising and instead go for a more personal attack but then you could post more to support your argument. There were debates online where people could challenge people's arguments, check their facts, make a point. I have only ever agreed with Piers on one occasion but enjoyed pulling apart his flawed opinions by introducing something novel to him - facts.
Now all that has changed. Clearly enough people are adding comments now that Piers can be selective over what he publishes. So has this improved quality of debate by getting rid of the wack-jobs that used to add their inarticulate, ill conceived comments, I hear you ask?
Not on your life. Now it is simply a circle jerk of ultra right-wing conservatives congratulating Piers on 'sticking it to Rudd again' or mocking those 'CSIRO pseudo-scientists for their latest research on global warming' or calling again for all Muslims, whether born here or otherwise, to be 'sent home.'
I don't consider myself a leftie but to the KKK-style brethren on Piers' blog I am what they would call a 'champagne socialist, latte sipping, pinko' or a Labor Party Stooge (evidently they don't understand that you don't have to be a card-carrying ALP member to not disagree with everything Rudd does). People like me don't fit into the church of Piers.
And there is a growing congregation of Piers followers who must RSS his articles and attempt to be the first to add their wisdom to the topic - here is a brief who's who from his site of some of the key pastors.
John Jay - writes short sentences devoid of fact, just personal attacks on Rudd, and written in the manner of a religious text. I used to think he was taking the piss but evidently he is serious.
Tim - Piers' biggest fan. Tim is apparently a science graduate, which makes him an expert on everything from psychology to economics. Piers allows Tim to post anything he wants, no matter how off topic it is, so long as it is slagging off Rudd, ALP, IPCC Scientists, the ABC, the Greense, Democratic Party, universities, Islam or a combination of all of the above. He treats the site like it is his own but can not win an argument against anyone capable of stringing a sentence together.
Grumpy - salt of the Earth character from Casino, the beef capital of the world. He adopts a Hanson-like simplicity that appeals to fellow half-wit Daily Telegraph readers.
Gandalf - you know anyone who takes a tag name from Tolkein studied IT. Probably a young Liberal virgin still living with mum.
DUDDY DIDDAMS - his name is in upper case which is an indicator of how aggressive he is - he is allowed by Piers to bully any dissenter - my mind's eye has him as one of the guys you find providing 'security' outside BNP conventions.
These are just a few of the main players. Sometimes I wonder whether Piers is one or more of these posters, revelling in the freedom such anonymity provides in avoiding anti vilification laws. The thing you notice now though is that posters to his site now are almost unanimous in their support for Piers' opinion.
Piers no longer posts my comments. I guess he didn't want anyone spoiling the fun for his party. I was like the one athiest at a Hillsong congregation ruining the blind faith of all the followers by introducing reasoned argument.
He lets the occasional pro Labor/Islam/Climate Change comment through but only if it is such a poorly formed argument that it merely serves to inflame a series of hate-fuelled responses from his followers.
A recent SMH article sites a study indicating that hate groups are becoming increasingly prevalent on social media sites such as facebook. But this study overlooks the danger of sites like Piers' blog. And no, it isn't dangerous just because I disagree with his philosophy. It is dangerous because it provides the credibility of News Ltd in legitimising the extremist views of Piers' followers.
And for that, Piers is a complete fuck stick.
I use the term 'journalist' here in the broadest possible definition of the word. He is no more a journalist than I am a neurosurgeon. The only difference is that I am not paid considerable amounts of money to conduct neurosurgery, whereas Piers receives at least award wage for his Opinion pieces.
Piers tends to focus on one of three conservative topics in each of his pieces, although sometimes these overlap and the reader is treated to a trifecta of hatred from his pen. Here are the topics:
- Labor is Bad. And as leader of the ALP, Rudd is pure Satan. Rudd could dive under a bus to save the life of Piers' youngest child and he would still find nothing positive to write about him. Piers ignores statistical data, historical fact and logic in posts that attempt to portray Labor and Rudd as irresponsible children, suddenly at the helm of the nation, out of their depth, and driven not by a desire to help their fellow Australians but personal greed. Apparently Rudd wants to be UN President and is using the office of PM of Australia as merely a stepping stone on his way.
The obvious corollary to this is that the Liberal/National Coalition are good (except Turnbull who was bad because he believes in global warming). Piers has a man-crush on Tony Abbott and you can imagine him batting off to pictures of Abbott in his speedos. And if you couldn't before, you can imagine it now. Not pretty is it. - Islam is bad. This neatly ties into Labor being bad because Labor leaders apparently let more Muslims into the country and in this you see the perverse circular logic Piers uses. Piers loves a good story about how some Mufti said something scary about Sharia Law. Such talk scares the shit out of his dumb-as-shit followers. Nobody wants to live under Sharia Law (except maybe some Muslims) but nobody has ever stated that it is Islam's goal to see Sharia Law enforced in Australia, except Piers and his followers. And by Islam Piers refers to all of it. Not merely fundamentalist sects that people may have a right to be scared of but all of Islam as though it is one homogeneous religion (like Christianity), which kind of ignores the fact that inter-Islamic rivalry has been far more deadly than any Islamic v Christian jihad.
- Climate Change is bullshit. Piers is not a scientist but that doesn't stop him from deriding all of the main theories around anthropomorphic climate change. It would be fine if he spent his life seeking the highest scientific standards and tore apart any theory found wanting. He doesn't. Like many ultra-conservative selfish fucks, he merely latches on to any flimsy argument that any other, marginally more educated, conservative dickhead identifies as a minor flaw in an otherwise massive argument. Piers' dismissal of IPCC documents is akin to writing off Shakespeare as a playwrite because he misspelled his own name a couple of times or denying the Holocaust ever happened because nobody can agree on the exact death toll from it.
Labor support action on Climate Change (as did Howard but only because, apparently, Turnbull put him up to it), so it is no wonder Piers hates Climate Change protagonists.
Lest you think I am being overly simplistic here. I wasted some time analysing Piers' columns so far this year. One day when I have nothing better to do, I will replicate this for all his online work. Here is the breakdown of topics covered in the 23 articles written to 15 March 2010:
- 19 of these were primarily focused on attacking Labor - with 10 purely about Labor
- 7 targeted climate change (6 of which were overtly attacking Labor at the same time)
- 7 also targeted Islam, with 4 hitting out a Labor in the same article, and 2 linking Climate Change as part of the axis of evil.
- Only one article didn't fit into either of the three topics, at least not directly, and this was the 25 Jan article"Cull time servers from list of heroes" in which Piers lauds the bravery of our anonymous war heroes in the obsequious manner only a Vietnam draft dodger can manage. Thankfully Piers' followers carried the flame to divert attention to how Labor have softened border control.
Early on, Piers would allow people to post pretty much anything other than defamatory comments that would get him in the shit. You could write in and disagree with him, he would retort with a 'witty' comment that would usually ignore the issue you were raising and instead go for a more personal attack but then you could post more to support your argument. There were debates online where people could challenge people's arguments, check their facts, make a point. I have only ever agreed with Piers on one occasion but enjoyed pulling apart his flawed opinions by introducing something novel to him - facts.
Now all that has changed. Clearly enough people are adding comments now that Piers can be selective over what he publishes. So has this improved quality of debate by getting rid of the wack-jobs that used to add their inarticulate, ill conceived comments, I hear you ask?
Not on your life. Now it is simply a circle jerk of ultra right-wing conservatives congratulating Piers on 'sticking it to Rudd again' or mocking those 'CSIRO pseudo-scientists for their latest research on global warming' or calling again for all Muslims, whether born here or otherwise, to be 'sent home.'
I don't consider myself a leftie but to the KKK-style brethren on Piers' blog I am what they would call a 'champagne socialist, latte sipping, pinko' or a Labor Party Stooge (evidently they don't understand that you don't have to be a card-carrying ALP member to not disagree with everything Rudd does). People like me don't fit into the church of Piers.
And there is a growing congregation of Piers followers who must RSS his articles and attempt to be the first to add their wisdom to the topic - here is a brief who's who from his site of some of the key pastors.
John Jay - writes short sentences devoid of fact, just personal attacks on Rudd, and written in the manner of a religious text. I used to think he was taking the piss but evidently he is serious.
Tim - Piers' biggest fan. Tim is apparently a science graduate, which makes him an expert on everything from psychology to economics. Piers allows Tim to post anything he wants, no matter how off topic it is, so long as it is slagging off Rudd, ALP, IPCC Scientists, the ABC, the Greense, Democratic Party, universities, Islam or a combination of all of the above. He treats the site like it is his own but can not win an argument against anyone capable of stringing a sentence together.
Grumpy - salt of the Earth character from Casino, the beef capital of the world. He adopts a Hanson-like simplicity that appeals to fellow half-wit Daily Telegraph readers.
Gandalf - you know anyone who takes a tag name from Tolkein studied IT. Probably a young Liberal virgin still living with mum.
DUDDY DIDDAMS - his name is in upper case which is an indicator of how aggressive he is - he is allowed by Piers to bully any dissenter - my mind's eye has him as one of the guys you find providing 'security' outside BNP conventions.
These are just a few of the main players. Sometimes I wonder whether Piers is one or more of these posters, revelling in the freedom such anonymity provides in avoiding anti vilification laws. The thing you notice now though is that posters to his site now are almost unanimous in their support for Piers' opinion.
Piers no longer posts my comments. I guess he didn't want anyone spoiling the fun for his party. I was like the one athiest at a Hillsong congregation ruining the blind faith of all the followers by introducing reasoned argument.
He lets the occasional pro Labor/Islam/Climate Change comment through but only if it is such a poorly formed argument that it merely serves to inflame a series of hate-fuelled responses from his followers.
A recent SMH article sites a study indicating that hate groups are becoming increasingly prevalent on social media sites such as facebook. But this study overlooks the danger of sites like Piers' blog. And no, it isn't dangerous just because I disagree with his philosophy. It is dangerous because it provides the credibility of News Ltd in legitimising the extremist views of Piers' followers.
And for that, Piers is a complete fuck stick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
