Now Rees is stealing from kids with a disability.. has he no shame? #media #politics

First up, let me say that I fully support effective funding for programs that assist people with a disability to reach their potential as human beings in a caring society. (And by definition that means all of us, varying only by degree and by our own recognition - or not - of ours and others' abilities. ) That means removing cultural roadblocks to change, including any distortions or misrepresentations by politicians, lobbyists of various kinds and the mass media. With that in mind, let me press on...

This is a story about several groups trying to leverage an issue to achieve an end. The issue itself becomes burdened with hangers-on and it becomes hard to tell who's really wanting what for or from whom; but the nub of it is that kids with a disability will be 'missing out' because the NSW State government bureaucracy wants to reassign unspent monies (ie to other programs, elsewhere).

Well first of all, IMHO this happens every year, and indeed school principals have been accused of hoarding cash from year to year, possibly with a larger goal in mind, or simply through an inability to properly manage their budgets. I'm sure there are many highly skilled, competent principals in the State system, but I am equally sure that many others need help with financial strategy, planning and execution. There is no secret about this, or about the yearly "issue" of 'use it or lose it'. Every state government department goes about this practice, every year.

So today we read this: PRINCIPALS are accusing the Rees Government of a "grubby grab" for more than $12 million in unspent funds sitting in school bank accounts.. That's para one. If you go to that page online and search, you'll find that there is no attribution for the "grubby grab" remark. We don't know how many principals are involved, as all we have is a quote from the chair of a forum: Cheryl McBride, the chairwoman of the Public Schools Principals' Forum, warned yesterday the Government was slashing funding for students. Presumably the 'grubby grab' quote is an invention by the newspaper in question. There is, thankfully, an opposing view provided: However, DET Deputy Director-General Trevor Fletcher denied there had been a reduction in any school's allocation for 2009. He said some schools had built up more funds than they could hope to spend on programs for which the money was earmarked.

Whatever the truth, the headline is all about Premier Rees and his grubby grab, and nothing about addressing real issues for school kids with a disability. There are resources made available by both the Federal and State governments, and to my (admittedly limited) understanding the problem is more that the individual needs of students are not properly assessed and addressed by the schools concerned. Simply, the right approaches are not made by the right people in a timely fashion, leaving cash at the bank. I could be wrong, but that may be the real issue, not this supposed "grubby grab".

The more that I see the traditional media pour scorn on NSW Premier Nathan Rees the more I imagine that the public will see an underdog being kicked by bullies. (Not enough to save this government, perhaps, but surely it will be a factor over time.) Now Rees is ostensibly in power, but you'd hardly get that impression from the pack of hounds constantly baying for blood.

It's become a running joke. It sometimes appears that if any State government department does anything that upsets anyone, there's a story printed, and always it's a distortion, and always it's the fault of the NSW premier. I hope he is enjoying his time in the hot seat. The real power may lie elsewhere.

Dollar 'plummets' - doesn't just fall #media #economics #language

This is about language, especially the language used by the traditional media, but we'll open up with some simple economics: the Australian dollar is traded on an open marketplace and moves up and down in response to demand. (Long ago it was fixed by successive governments, mostly notably the conservative ones, but a Labor federal government reformed our currency system and floated the dollar.)

By floating or trading the currency the value of the dollar adjusts itself to the realities of, for example, importers wishing to exchange Aussie dollars for other currencies. These importers need to do this in order to buy goods and bring them into the country. Now as the dollar falls in value against any particular currency that means more Aussie dollars are needed to buy that foreign currency. This raises the local cost for the importer which will be reflected either in lessened profit for the importer or (more likely) an increased price to the consumer. The upshot of that is a fall in demand for price-sensitive imported products and more cash available to buy locally-produced products, or to invest locally. Is this good or bad? Or neutral?

To read the local Aussie press you'd think it bad, by default: Australian dollar plummets on weak US data. Note that it didn't fall - by about a cent, mind - rather it plummeted. Doesn't sound good, does it? I can imagine many readers assuming the worst.

However the flipside to a falling dollar is that exporters will be selling Aussie goods at local Aussie prices to importers in other countries, and they will receive payment in a foreign currency. As the Aussie dollar falls in value against those currencies (and it may not, as each is traded individually), they get more Aussie dollars in return for a stronger overseas currency. For example an exporter may have signed a contract in $US and will expect to get a certain number of Aussie dollars when those gratefully received US dollars arrive. However a falling Aussie dollar means they will get more Aussie dollars than they originally expected. It's a bonus, it adds value and profit to the exporter's bottom line and encourages further investment. So now, is that good, bad or neutral?

Media-speak is a wonderful thing, but it does distort the news by adding colour and flavour where none is needed. Rather than report an event, they re-write it to suit what they want to portray. Whilst some traditional media play a straight bat most of the time, all succumb to temptation over time and manipulate stories to their advantage. We know this, and put up with it. After all, we know the game-plan of each media outlet is to sell their product - or do we?