The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Devil in the detail > Comments

Devil in the detail : Comments

By Sharon Beder, published 17/3/2006

The new Tourism Australia advertisements are offensive for a reason other than an innocuous swear word.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Stepping outside your area of knowledge to attack the forest industry is rather poor from and does the green move no favours.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 17 March 2006 11:34:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you put this on the wrong message board, this is about the commercial, not logging.
Posted by bluerock, Friday, 17 March 2006 11:46:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor Beder’s penchant for conspiracy theories is well-known. Her publications demonstrate her world-view: "Global Spin" and "Setting the Global Agenda: Corporate Coalitions, Coercion and Control". Yep. Sure. Whatever.

Today’s article is in the same vein: snide allusions, rather than logical argument or fact.

Thus, the conspiracy theory gets prime billing: “Some argue that the chemicals used in forestry are contributing to the cancer. Others that the cancer is contagious and is spread when the devils bite each other.” Who, exactly, attributes the cancers to chemicals and on the basis of what evidence? She doesn’t say.

On the other hand, Professor Beder goes on to impute that the researchers who favour the latter explanation are up to no good because “the [Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment] which employs them [that is, they’ve been paid to reach those conclusions, right Sharon?] is responsible for the permitting, control and supervision of 1080 use and for administering legislation covering aerial spraying of atrazine and other chemicals. Its 2005 Code of Practice for 1080 recognises that ‘Farmers and foresters frequently have a real need to reduce damage to pastures and crops by native browsing animals.’” The bastards.

“Naturally the forestry industry has hailed the publication by the DPIWE researchers as proof that their chemicals are not the cause of the cancers.” Naturally. Whatever you say, Sharon.

Professor Beder is already preparing her escape, and implying that regardless of the results of DNA testing on the animals’ tumours, it was the chemicals what done it: “However, even if it is subsequently proved that the cancers are contagious, it may well be that forestry chemicals have weakened the immune systems of the devils and made them vulnerable to cancers.”

It may well be. Or not.

Green academia? It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it.
Posted by KenH, Friday, 17 March 2006 11:58:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is being criticised here is simply a neat marketing turn of phrase. The target audience of this marketing campaign is not supposed to critically analyse every word, but to react emotionally and bloody well put Australia on the top of its priority list of "must see" tourist destinations.

The fact that our unique and fascinating flora and fauna is being highlighted as one of the prime reasons for coming here creates a win/win situation. International tourists who come here if only partially to experience our amazing wildlife will expect to see that wildlife protected and well managed.

We all know that until comparatively recently, Australia has had an appalling record of looking after our native wildlife and forests and this is perhaps why some environmentalists are accused of going over the top with their accusations and demands. Hopefully the tide has well and truly turned and all of us can look beyond our narrow financial or work related viewpoints and see what is good for Australia and for the world as a whole.

I know that if I came here to see a Tasmanian Devil in the wild [is this possible, I live in WA and have never been to Tassie?], I would expect to see healthy specimens as part of a healthy and adequate breeding stock. And if this was obviously not the case, then I may want to know what the Australian govt was bloody well doing about it!
Posted by Rex, Friday, 17 March 2006 5:49:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thought "Devil in the Detail" might suit this one?

Kerry and Condy

Re’ the discussion between Kerry O’Brien nad Condoleeza Rice the other night, it was interesting to note Condy’s change of nature under questionng. From the point of view of a writer and historian there was the illustration of a person who though able to put on a front good enough for an Academy Award, the lady seemed strangely nervous when asked two particular questions, one about a coming US attack on Iraq, and the other about what the US was going to do about China?. With both suggestions or queries, her colouring turned almost ashen for a split second, but hardly enough to notice as the expression changed back to the Academy Award look.

In some ways we might say, that for Condy to feel tension like that, could be an omen for the future, and a hope, in a way, that US dangerous-sounding threats as published in today’s West’’, might be all just talk or spin. Anyhow, let’s hope so, for America’s sake alone, because it seems the only way most appreciate the Americans these days, is not for friendliness, but mainly for protection, which in a way, is not a very healthy climate for our world, especially for our great grandkids in the future.

George C, WA - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 18 March 2006 2:24:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am still trying to connect the forest, the pomm tourist and the little devil. Cancer is no new infliction, my paternal great grad-daddy worked in timber-cutting/milling all his adult life, and contracted 'bowel cancer.' Well, timbers, trees and other flora have their own toxins, they do not need added ones to affect the fauna(man included) that should eat it, brush up against it, or inhale it... it all can be toxic..
Posted by ELIDA, Saturday, 18 March 2006 12:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Elida
you ask why is Ms Beder trying to link Tassie forests workers with a tourism promo in the UK, well it's my opinion that’s its all to do with marketing, but not what you may think, it's a very well healed Green Machine with a annual revenue of no less than 15 million dollars and yes Ms Beder is part of that game.

This massive revenue base comes from their misleading and often dishonest marketing of a death and doom image of Tasmania.
An example of that revenue is in 2004/05 the TWS had gross revenue earnings of $9,137,412.00 with 97% of that being gained by fundraising (marketing)

The year before the ACF's gross revenue was $6,768,285.00

Check it out for your self at http://www.givewell.com.au/

You would think the green machine and Ms Beder would promote facts about what Tasmania has achieved for conservation but as we have seen from her writings not one word about the 1 million ha of old growth forest reserved. No doubt the GM and Ms Beder know that people won’t donate if they knew the facts so their plan is to hide the facts and keep peddling death and doom.
Posted by Bas, Saturday, 18 March 2006 5:32:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reprint

Thought 'Devil in the Detail' might suit this one.

Kerry versus Condy

Re' the discussion between Condoleeza Rice and Kerry O'Brien the other night on the ABC, it was interesting to notice Condy's split second change of face under questioning. From the point of view of a historian and writer there became fixed in the mind, the picture of a person who though able to put on a front good enough for an academy award, the lady reacted strangely when asked two particular questions - one about a coming US attack on Iran, and the other about China's huge projected military buildup? With both suggestions or queries, her colouring turned almost ashen for that split second, though possibly hardly enough to be noticed by the average observer.

In some ways we might say that for Condy to feel tension like that could be an omen for the future, and a hope, in a way, that dangerous sounding threats by the United States as published in yesterday's 'West Australian" newspaper, might be all jast so much talk or spin.

Anyhow, let's hope so, partly for America's sake alone. It seems the only way America is appreciated these days is not for friendliness, but like a police academy, mainly for protection - which in a way indicates not a very healthy political climate for our future world, not only for America, but for our own great grandkids.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 18 March 2006 5:36:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to thank Sharon Beder for giving all of us an insight into the convoluted workings of a educated green left brain.

As a social “progressive”, Sharon sees nothing wrong with “old-fashioned, innocuous swear words” being used by advertising companies to promote products. Even using them in a country like Great Britain, where the prime Minister himself has made public statements expressing concern about the growing lack of respect and outright vulgar behaviour now becoming common in British youth.

No. “Old” swear words are not offensive in advertising to Sharon, but making snide asides about “pacifying the Tasmanian Devil” is deeply offensive.

What we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is a new Puritanism ideology being espoused by a new religious order, who sincerely believe that mocking any aspect of their New Age belief is total heresy that can not be tolerated.

Now, normal people who are not affected by green fundamentalism, can instantly grasp that non Australians are probably more familiar with the Bugs Bunny “Tasmanian Devil” than the real life one. So, a line like “pacifying the Tasmanian Devil” simply means that Oz is a nice place to visit where there are no nasty bitey creatures around.

But to Sharon it obviously means something else. Sharon thought that the advertisers were bragging about Australians “pacifying” (with extreme prejudice) Australian wildlife.

As a professor, Sharon is obviously very intelligent. But something is lacking in the way her mind processes some information. She simply can not see a simple concept which most other people simply take for granted. Unable to see that the advertising statement is innocuous, she can only perceive it in terms of being highly offensive.

Psychologists coined the word ‘Authoritarian Personality” to label people who can only think in terms of black/white moral absolutes and who are unable to conceptualise different shades of grey. Such people are usually very religious or believe in authoritarian social systems which are a substitute for a religion. In this secular age, extreme environmentalism appears to be a substitute for religion for people with Sharon’s particular personality.
Posted by redneck, Sunday, 19 March 2006 5:44:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As an American I watched the ads thanks to my Aussie pen pal. Right you are, we associate the Tasmanian Devil with Bugs Bunny. The Devil is a totally carnivorous creature that wouldn't make a good pet. We all know how well Americans treat their pets. My new feral cat lives a better life than some people on this planet.

My point is this, my Aussie pen pal has lived a hard life. A life that I associate with my Grandparents. Her life was and is a hard life. Barely scraping by. There were millions spent on this ad campaign. What is her life of hard labor worth?

That money could have been spent in a more worthwhile area. Like basic needs for those who worked their whole life providing comfort for the more fortunate. Corporate owned farms, mines, or tourism. Government promotes tourism. Hence the millions spent on this ad campagn. But the people who work for this industry are barely getting by. I ask the question again. What is a life worth?
Posted by Patty Jr. Satanic Feminist, Sunday, 19 March 2006 2:56:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Devil in the detail .

Well I tried reading the article with only my left eye open but it still didn't make any sense .

The attempt to connect forestry & agricultural spraying to tumors on devils was made by a Dr Marcus Scammell in a report he prepared at the request of a small group of oyster growers from the east coast of tas .

The problem the oyster growers have experienced is that after a high rainfall event large numbers of their oysters are killed by the fresh water passing through their leases .

Other oyster growers say this is normal but one or two of the east coast growers seem to have to try to blame someone for any problems they experience .

A copy of the highly critised Scammell report was handed to the media before one was handed to DPIWE . Plainly to create trouble I think .

The Scammell report & the DPIWE response can be found via the DPIWE web site .

Dr Bader perhaps should study a bit of detail before writing about it .
Posted by jamo, Sunday, 19 March 2006 11:04:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Bader should have been Prof Beder ..sorry..

I must practice what I preach . times 100 .
Posted by jamo, Sunday, 19 March 2006 11:10:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dear sharon beder - thank you for your sensible and incisive contribution on this very important issue. seeing the tasmanian devils in their agony is bad enough in the photographs. their agony in reality is a million times worse. the crass advertisement indicates that its makers are, sadly, unaware of what is happening in australia today - this being a fine example. how can they put themselves foward as 'tourism australia' experts, when they clearly do not know about the endangerment of and to the tasmanian devil. thank you again.
Posted by jocelynne, Monday, 20 March 2006 11:08:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy