Archive for the 'Culture' Category

Economy tanks, blogs suffer! (or… advertising and readership accountability post)

Here’s our regular update on how the blog is doing. First to the stats.

June was a bumper month for us with 117430 unique visitors, 229301 visits and 1685704 page views. In July, we were back around the sort of reader numbers we had for April with 89496 unique visitors, 195867 visits and 1442702 page views (as Kim noted, more than Andrew Bolt has….) and August looks like coming in at around the same numbers. The drop off from June coincided exactly with the start of the school holidays (and uni break) and then spiked up a little, before settling back down with the onset of the Olympics. More generally, and obviously there’s a tale there, my analysis of the detailed stats shows that we get a fair bit of extra traffic associated with sustained coverage of particular events or issues - for instance the federal budget, the 2020 summit, the Bill Henson photos controversy, the Garnaut Review report and World Youth Day. That seems to be people interested in those specific things, and where we are now is probably just below the usual level of general interest in what we write about - which garners us around 6200 visitors on most week days, and around 5000 on weekends this month. That’s about 1000 less than it was before school/uni holidays and the Olympics intervened.

There was some scepticism around last year that political blogs would not easily make the transition into the Rudd era, in the absence of the stimulus of the federal election, which is when our numbers really jumped to a level that’s reasonably significant. That concern can be set aside, because clearly we’ve maintained a steady readership at around the same levels throughout this year, and when there’s more focus and public interest on particular issues that aren’t being well covered by the mainstream media, we can pull in around 1000 more visitors a day, and sometimes more - there were quite a few days in July when we were getting visitor numbers in the high 8000s. Some of the traffic “base” if you like of all these numbers is the “long tail” - visits to old posts. But in general we’re getting each visitor looking at an average of 7.5 pages, which when you take into account the fact that a lot of the traffic from seach engines to older pages only goes to one post, means that a lot of readers are engaging with a lot of the blog when they come here.

I still think we can grow these numbers, and we haven’t had any income from advertising yet, so we haven’t been able to do our own promotion beyond what we usually do, but I’d be really grateful if folks who like the joint spread the word, and also very interested in feedback on the mix and quality of posts. I’ve said something about the mix here. That takes me to advertising revenue. Continue reading ‘Economy tanks, blogs suffer! (or… advertising and readership accountability post)’

Relaxed if not necessarily comfortable: On (blogging and) politics in the Rudd era

One thing people might have noticed around LP is that we’re focusing less and less on the daily diet of the political news cycle, even if we do still think it’s worthwhile having a bit of fun poking holes in the wilder fantasies of the “media narrative”, and highlighting the comedy act that is the Liberal leadership wars. We’re trying to provide a wider smorgasbord of posts - from policy focused pieces to cultural stuff to all sorts of interesting and noteable things we pick up around the intertubes.

That’s very different from what political blogging was like in the Howard era. And that raises a broader question - why is there such a disconnect between the state of political journalism and anything that anyone actually cares too much about in the Rudd era? I think there are possibly two answers to that question.

The first is that a managerialist government deliberately downplays the politics of governing, and Rudd himself usually avoids sharpening the edges of any political knives, leaving the Liberals hoist on their own petard. This is classic state Labor style, and I still don’t think either the Liberal “strategists” or the commentariat get it. Effectively, if all the colour and movement is on the opposition side - leadership squabbles, hyperbolic pronouncements, noisy personal attacks, they get to fill the space of “politics” in the public mind - to the extent that anyone pays any attention to them at all, it’s a big turnoff. While the government looks calm and unruffled. Waiting for Costello might be a fun game for the meejah to play, but most Australians couldn’t give a flying freak.

Continue reading ‘Relaxed if not necessarily comfortable: On (blogging and) politics in the Rudd era’

Now this is what I call a netroots base

Running for Office: It’s Like A Flamewar with a Forum Troll, but with an Eventual Winner

Sean Tevis’ innovative method of raising internet funds in his venture to oust and replace his current State Representative (basically equivalent to one of our State MPs?) in Kansas is an online comic strip.

When Sean Tevis decided to run for a seat in the Kansas Legislature, he faced a serious problem: money. Local political advisors warned the campaign novice that he would need a war chest of at least $26,000 to compete against his entrenched Republican rival.

Having calculated that if he could get 3000 people to donate $8.34 each, he would reach that target, he created the comic strip to garner attention from potential online donors. He’s sort of a one-man Get Up! campaign.

Apparently, no other candidate for State Representative in Kansas has ever had more than 644 donors, so there was a built-in news narrative if he could make it work. So did it? Well, there’s a bunch of news coverage online, as well as many bloggings.

How many similar efforts are we going to see in election contests in the immediate future, do you think?

H/T to one of my Best Mates on a mailing list (and crossposted on Hoyden About Town)

Howard’s End: not E. M. Forster but Van Onselen and Senior

Here’s another don’t waste your $34.95 book review, and for many of the same reasons as Mark identified as failures in an earlier 2007 federal election tome from Melbourne University Press - Christine Jackman’s Inside Kevin07.

If anything, Peter Van Onselen and Philip Senior’s Howard’s End: The Unravelling of a Government is an even more tedious read. That might have been evident from the fact that even the now obligatory astroturf “news” stories about the book couldn’t find too much in the way of “shock! horror!” type “revelations” to excerpt, as I observed at the time.

The blurb claims:

In the tradition of Pamela Williams’ The Victory, Howard’s End analyses and makes sense of the result and its far-reaching implications for the people of Australia.

Well, that might indeed be a worthy aim, but the problem is that the book doesn’t do much analysis, and very little sense-making and if there’s anything in it about the implications for the people of Australia as opposed to the future of the Liberal party (such insight filled gems as “rebuilding the Liberal Party after the 2007 federal election defeat was always going to be difficult…”) I’ve completely missed them.

If political journalism is supposed to be the first draft of history, this is apparently the first draft of the first draft. Through 192 pages, the book tediously recounts the events after Rudd’s ascension to the Labor leadership on an almost week by week basis. Mungo McCallum did much the same thing, but at least it was funny. If you’re looking for a reminder of the interminable “perpetual campaign”, then probably you’re pushing the tragic in political tragic a bit further than it normally should go, but you might do better to read Mungo, or indeed click on the archive of this blog. There’s only so much interest in reading exactly what John Howard announced about training policy on day whatever of the campaign, or what Rudd said in a press conference whenever in May. It reads as if someone’s sat down with a stack of newspapers and paraphrased the tedium of day to day political reporting.

But it gets worse. Continue reading ‘Howard’s End: not E. M. Forster but Van Onselen and Senior’

How to live with emissions?

WorleyParsons’ PR coup last week indicated a thirst for big interventions into an otherwise rather bleak energy policy landscape1. The ~$100k feasibility study regurgitated by the MSM (and analysed by Robert here) was, as Brian alluded to, chump change from their handsome profiteering from Canada crapping all over its Kyoto commitments under the Harper Government. It remains to be seen whether WP actually capitalises on its good press and goes ahead with the projects, or simply banks the warm and fuzzies and continues its search for business opportunities elsewhere. If the projects do progress beyond the speculative phase, it would raise some interesting questions around the diversification of a business like theirs into solar (rather than, for example, consolidating its interests in various carbon intensive fields). Continue reading ‘How to live with emissions?’

  1. Two particular stories stand out: (1) Australia’s main carbon capture collective, CO2CRC, flagged the need for an additional $300m to keep the ball rolling on their research; and, (2) In a move which underlines their uninsurability, Parliament moved on legislation to protect Carbon Capture and Storage projects should they leak (or damage lifeforms we have little to no understanding of) ↩[back]

Blogging political fiction

One of the rather egregious questions on last week’s Q&A asked the panel to comment on why there was no contemporary political fiction of the stature of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s. As with a lot of the queries posed on Q&A, it’s a bit of a silly one, but it did remind me that we discussed political fiction here at LP a while back, and to give folks the heads up that American speculative fiction writer and anthologist Jeff VanderMeer is blogging about political fiction at The Huffington Post.

[VanderMeer, along with regular guest bloggers, writes regularly at Ecstatic Days.]

WA Labor takes aim at the Liberals’ “boys club”

I suspect none of the major parties federally or in any of the states and territories could entirely escape the accusation of being a “boys club”, but I’m very interested to see - for the first time I can think of - gendered cultures within a political party being raised as an election issue in Australia. The WA Labor Party is running a radio ad which you can listen to here. The ad highlights the disparity in female representation between the two major parties, and it’s reminds voters of some of the appalling behaviour associated with former leader (and current Shadow Treasurer) Troy Buswell. But aside from the ikkiness of the boy culture exposed by Troy “I did not have intercourse with that quokka” Buswell, there’s clearly something in the accusation - the way that “star” candidate Deirdre Willmott was casually elbowed aside to accommodate the resurrected Colin Barnett really seems to have been appalling from a story in the weekend Fin Review quoting Willmott at length. Apparently Barnett met her two days before, and mentioned nothing, and she wasn’t told what was going on even before the press conference at which Buswell resigned. A range of other female Liberal MPs resigned from the party in the last term, and some are recontesting, with independent Liberal Liz Constable being co-opted into a frontbench role by Barnett to try to soften the damage.

I’d be watching any gender breakdown in the polls in WA very carefully.

Elsewhere: More from William Bowe aka The Poll Bludger for subscribers in Crikey.

I won’t add my condemn to your condemn XIV

It doesn’t seem like all that long ago, but it’s been half a month since we had a good condemn. Although there’s been a bit of condemnation about the Lympics. So it must be time again to condemn. Here’s a twenty fourth open condemnation thread. What’s getting up your goat this month so far? Which evil political, cultural, social, musical, religious and other phenomena need condemnation? (Or loud denunciation?)

You can condemn anything you like except La Femme Nikita. Well, you can condemn Michael. But not Nikita, Edward Woodward or Coldplay tracks.

7’s lies, damned lies and medal counts

One of the things that has given me the $hit$ watching Channel 7s coverage of the Olympics is the adjusted medal count; this thrown up when the “real” medal count doesn’t appear to meet early morning breakfast expectations. In Mel and Kochy’s world we’re always number one if you massage the figures the right way.

Truth be told I don’t like any medal count by nation; aren’t the Olympics supposed to be about singular human athletic achievement? By that measurement Michael Phelps is absolute number one and at this point he matches Australia in gold medal achievement. Maybe that should make 7’s adjusted list, an asterix or footnote would help their simplistic exercise.

Just to prick the early morning in studio Green and Gold flag waving jingoistic bubble for a moment, are we ever number one on any adjusted list?

In a recent post More Intelligent Life asked the medal count question and showed us at number two in Athens, second to the Bahamas. And then there is this site whose approach to the tally currently throws up Jamaica as the top dog. Pass the dutchy!

What about medals based on the money spent on sport science, or GDP, or the number of beaches added to grains of sand multiplied by days of sunlight? Or the number of former gold medal winners who failed to take gold this time around? On the latter metric I think we really are number one.

Obama ♥ Jesus

Joan Walsh at Salon asks whether America is “now officially a Christian nation”. She’s thinking of this - Obama’s appearance along with John McCain at Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church:

One of the candidates for president strolled onto the stage at a massive megachurch in suburban Orange County Saturday night and started joking easily with the Rev. Rick Warren, maybe the most popular evangelical leader in America — but just plain “Pastor Rick” to the candidate. He talked about his certainty that “Jesus Christ died for my sins, and I am redeemed through him,” said Americans should be soldiers in the fight against evil and defined marriage as between a man and a woman — “and God is in the mix.” This particular Christian candidate was so on his game that after a segment on domestic policy ended, Warren told him — his mic still live as the TV feed cut to commercial — “Home run.”

Oh, and John McCain was there, too.

Rick Warren’s been one of the most prominent megachurch Pastors arguing that Evangelicals can vote for Democrats.

Partly Obama’s appearance is electoral calculation - the Democrats have been talking about how to walk the faith talk since some (misleading) exit polls in November 2004. But I have no doubt he’s sincere. So much for separation of Church and State. Continue reading ‘Obama ♥ Jesus’

Flashback charts

[Via The Global Sociology Blog] Here’s something fun for a Sunday evening. This website enables you to select any day of any year going back to 1892 and find out what the top song on the (American) charts was. It’s suggested that you find out what the hit of the moment on your birthday was. Mine’s “Love is Blue” by Paul Mauriat and his orchestra. I don’t know if there are any quasi-astrological influences on your future destiny, but anyway…

Lazy Sunday!

Since we don’t live by politix alone (I sincerely hope), what did people get up to this weekend? Join in, share some tales, regulars and lurkers all!

Beautiful day in Brisbane, by the way.

If you’d like to see a larger image of the photos, click on them then click on “full view” once you’re inside the gallery.


New Farm Park CityCat by *phenomenologist on deviantART


Sunday picnic in the park by *phenomenologist on deviantART

Continue reading ‘Lazy Sunday!’

Georgia: Evil, reality and war

Standing beside US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Georgian President Mikhael Shaakazvili described Russia as “evil”. It’s probably too much to expect that he might recognise his own degree of responsibility for the war (not forgetting Vladimir Putin’s of course), but the use of language such as this is reminiscent of Rice’s boss and the moralisation of international relations and conflict usually associated with George W. Bush’s regime. Opinions will differ on whether the use of such emotive rhetoric makes the settlement and resolution of conflict easier or more difficult. Of course war is an evil, but some international actors have acted as if it’s a necessary evil over the course of this decade, and indeed made a virtue of pre-emptive war. So it’s been difficult not to notice the hypocrisy of American claims about the inviolability of sovereign states in the 21st century.

In what I think is quite a balanced article in the New Statesman, Misha Glenny looks at the influence of the reality-free thinking of the Dick Cheney faction on the lead up to the Georgian conflict, without minimising the autocratic and bellicose behaviour of the Putin regime. At Open Democracy, Donald Rayfield looks at the realistic options Georgia has, and some of the background to the war, while Neal Ascherson similarly examines how Georgia could progress beyond this war. Both write as avowed friends of Georgia, but both don’t think inflammatory rhetoric from Washington helps at all - they believe that it in fact hinders any positive outcome. This isn’t to adopt some deracinated Kissingerian realism, but rather to argue that the Manichean language of good and evil does anything but achieve the objectives it ostensibly sets out. As Ascherson powerfully demonstrates, there’s evil enough to go around on both sides of this conflict, with atrocities committed at least since the fall of the Soviet Union. A recognition of that - rather than positioning one side as a plucky sovereign democracy and the other as the incarnation of Satan - might actually provide a basis for realistic and peaceful progress.

Continue reading ‘Georgia: Evil, reality and war’

On Rage: Raging against Germaine

As a bit of a follow up to the discussion of Germaine Greer’s latest book On Rage here, I was interested to see Gary Sauer-Thompson observe that most of the reaction (and there’s been tons of it) to her writing and various speeches and appearances in the press has completely avoided the issues she actually raises, and concentrated on interweaving loud denunciations of her - and claims that she’s irrelevant - with already well established “media narratives”. If she’s in fact got nothing of relevance to say, as one of our commenters observed, you have to wonder why all the energy expended.

Her book hasn’t hit the shelves in Brisneyland as far as I can tell, but I’m awaiting it with interest. There’s a taste of what’s to come at Public Opinion.

Continue reading ‘On Rage: Raging against Germaine’

Mutual obligation and Indigenous policy

In the wake of discussion of Andrew Forrest’s proposal for the creation of 50 000 full time jobs for Indigenous Australians (discussed here at LP) and Germaine Greer’s remarks on the continuing force of history in shaping Indigenous responses to state initiatives (discussed here and see the video of last night’s Q&A), I thought it was worth linking to a paper prepared for the Australian Education Union by UTS Indigenous academics Larissa Behrendt and Ruth McCausland. The specific topic they examine is welfare quarantining and schooling outcomes. I’d recommend anyone interested read the whole thing, but the abstract has also been posted at Australian Policy Online.

As well as discussing the philosophy of mutual obligation (referred to as John Howard’s most significant legacy to social policy), the authors point to the lack of an evidence base for most policy initiatives in this area - something almost totally lacking in the research which justified Noel Pearson’s proposals for “family commissions” in Cape York, which is now being held up as a model for the rest of Australia. This appears inconsistent with Jenny Macklin’s disclaimers of ideological motivation and claims that evidence and “what works” would be the criterion for Indigenous policy. They also point to several studies which demonstrate that parental responsibility in sending kids to schools is at best only one factor in school attendance and outcomes, with the quality of schooling and child health also being very important variables.

The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that most policy initiatives in this area are at best blunt instruments. It also suggests that they are being driven by a new orthodoxy - arguments about “personal responsibility” and “social norms” being more assertion than evidence based. Most tellingly, perhaps, and here Greer’s comments are important too, is the suggestion that the obligation is almost entirely one sided and thus lacking in mutuality - and that the state is failing to put in place the preconditions for such experiments to have much chance of providing enduring outcomes. That doesn’t leave me feeling me feeling very hopeful about the prospects of closing the gap.