No reporting that I have seen has given this any context. (Apart from “Ha! The Government WINz0r! Take that you lazy bleeding-heart lazy-Abo-lovers!!!”, which doesn't exactly help.) The line I quoted from Jon Altman was the most cogent piece of context I have seen anywhere, in fact. And it rated precisely one line in one summary on-line.
And that night on the 7:30 Report, Yunupingu opened his mouth, and Mal Brough's voice came out, it was spooky. Because the context given was all “How the kind and benevolent government won over a reflexively obstructionist barrier to Progress,” with little actual detail of what Yunupingu's concerns were. But no, it must be the ABC's fault. Evidence that any of the others are any better? Why would that be relevant?
And when the event is given context, that context indicates that Yunupingu was deliberately and specifically worked on to weaken any criticism, and gut any opposition, certainly any organised opposition. That indicates to me a systematic, methodical act of bastardry.
Because, this was all about the CHIIIIILDREN!!! Remember? So, how many cases of Child abuse has this invasion discovered? Um, precisely none. Some others have been uncovered and prosecuted in this time, sure. But by regular coppers, not the OMFG Special Forces. And what process is being seriously expedited? Not local clinics, or provision of resources for schooling (while there has been some action towards getting the children to go to the schools they've got), but the wholesale ‘reform’ of land rights? That's going gangbusters.
But no, seeing any sort of ulterior motive would be simply unfair.
And another thing: maybe I'm just blindingly ignorant, and everyone else sees this as a trivially obvious detail, not worth mentioning, but who is leasing to whom? Has the government acquired the land, and is supplying a 99 year lease back to the inhabitants for some kind of (possibly nominal) rent, or does the local Aboriginal Corporation still retain title, and the government is leasing the land and on-leasing it to people so that they can own their own homes, &c.?
It seems a fairly important detail, but no-one, anywhere, to my knowledge has explained it. Not the (Stalinist) ABC. Not The Age. Not eh Cheersquad in the Herald-Scum or the Oz.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Actually
Date: 2007-09-24 12:41 am (UTC)And that night on the 7:30 Report, Yunupingu opened his mouth, and Mal Brough's voice came out, it was spooky. Because the context given was all “How the kind and benevolent government won over a reflexively obstructionist barrier to Progress,” with little actual detail of what Yunupingu's concerns were. But no, it must be the ABC's fault. Evidence that any of the others are any better? Why would that be relevant?
And when the event is given context, that context indicates that Yunupingu was deliberately and specifically worked on to weaken any criticism, and gut any opposition, certainly any organised opposition. That indicates to me a systematic, methodical act of bastardry.
Because, this was all about the CHIIIIILDREN!!! Remember? So, how many cases of Child abuse has this invasion discovered? Um, precisely none. Some others have been uncovered and prosecuted in this time, sure. But by regular coppers, not the OMFG Special Forces. And what process is being seriously expedited? Not local clinics, or provision of resources for schooling (while there has been some action towards getting the children to go to the schools they've got), but the wholesale ‘reform’ of land rights? That's going gangbusters.
But no, seeing any sort of ulterior motive would be simply unfair.
And another thing: maybe I'm just blindingly ignorant, and everyone else sees this as a trivially obvious detail, not worth mentioning, but who is leasing to whom? Has the government acquired the land, and is supplying a 99 year lease back to the inhabitants for some kind of (possibly nominal) rent, or does the local Aboriginal Corporation still retain title, and the government is leasing the land and on-leasing it to people so that they can own their own homes, &c.?
It seems a fairly important detail, but no-one, anywhere, to my knowledge has explained it. Not the (Stalinist) ABC. Not The Age. Not eh Cheersquad in the Herald-Scum or the Oz.
Somehow, that's the ABC's fault as well.