People are creatures of habit and it is only that so many people are habituated to buying the news papers that any are still being sold at all. Just take any kind of commute on public transport and consider how many people are reading a paper and how many are staring at a screen instead. Some certainly may be playing games or even watching video but I expect that they will be out numbering those who are still reading dead tree editions of the MSM.
Then there is the things in the paper that people buy them for, most papers are not exclusively about politics and current affairs anyway, so some readers will be buying the paper for its coverage of sport, lifestyle or even just for the crossword puzzles. My point is that the political classes (in particular those from the left ) just look at the raw sales figured and they think that every reader of the Herald Sun is in the thrall of Rupert Murdoch and that the owners dictate to their readers directing their opinions. The reality is that all media entities write to their audience. If they don’t their audience wither away quite quickly. With the coming of the internet this is even more how things work Online entities are even more in an endless quest for readers so you have to play to what your readers want rather than thinking that you can manipulate their thinking. I have been writing a blog for nearly a decade now and I have noticed just how quickly particular readers flit in and out its the same now with the way that people read things online from the likes of Murdoch, Fairfax or even the Guardian People don’t just get their news from one source any more no matter what the subject is they will read what several sources say about it and then make up their mind. This behaviour is the same when it comes to broadcast TV people flit form one channel to another seeking different perspectives. My argument is simple, if the media consumers have changed their habits then perhaps there is something in the notion that media diversity laws from the last century should perhaps reflect those changes as well.
The other very long “claims of persecution” thread produced an intense debate and one that is quite transplantable from the microcosm of a blog like the Sandpit to the community at large no matter which side of the argument you are on there are plenty of people who have a similar opinion out there in the community . The piece I cite today from the OZ points out that one reason that those who have got here will remain in detention for a long period of time (besides the Labor party’s cowardly “processing freeze”) is that there is a distinct lack of people to review claims for asylum that have been denied and on top of that ASIO are unable to complete the security reviews in a timely manner as part of decision making process either.
Add to that the clear reluctance of the government to forcefully deport those who are deemed not to be legitimate refugees or those who fail a security test and you have a very good understanding of just why we are running out of space to house the boat people detained under the regime of Brother Number One and the Anointed one.
So my questions for today are how long should it take to decide the legitimacy of the asylum claims and if those claims are denied how long should it be before the failed claimants are deported?