Today Show 22 July

Sobering piece on the Today Show this morning about cyber bullying and the ultimate outcome that can occur if it is not bitten in the butt straight away.
Cyber-bullying is in no way acceptable at any level. No matter how a young person tries to justify it, just like in the real world, a zero tolerance policy should exist within schools and the home – whether your child is the victim or perpetrator.

Unfortunately, some people really feel the pinch of cyber-bullying more so than in real life because it is happening within your home, and with one in four Australian children saying they have been a victim of cyber-bullying, it is an insidious blight that is not going to go away any time soon.

Cyber-bullying is destructive and can take many forms – from spreading gossip and lies, through to threats of violence, and everything in between.
So what are the solutions. They are easy and basic, and there is no excuse not to put them in place.

1)Talk to your kids. Sure, kids are recalcitrant in coming forward with their problems because they’d hate the idea of their parents interfering in their lives, but you can’t afford to ignore this one. They perceive it as a sign of weakness to those who are doing the bullying and feel it empowers the bully. However, you don’t have to go like a bull-at-a-gate if you find out who the bully is. Get the evidence and then act upon it in a mature way.

2)Don’t hesitate to contact your child’s school or the police if you feel the threats are bad. Today, school principles and teachers take cyber bullying of students very seriously. They have no tolerance. If the case is serious enough, the police will take a complaint and investigate.

3)Get involved with what your kids are doing online. Like most kids – especially teenagers – they’ll hate your interference, but as they are still minors, and they are living under your roof, you have the right to look into what they are doing. You don’t have to go overboard and get involved in every little thing, but you certainly have the right to know who their friends are and what subjects they are discussing.

4)Parents have to realise that kids are probably a lot more tech savvy than they are, but that doesn’t mean you can’t educate yourself on the different social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Twitter, and how these sites work.

Currently 42 percent of Aussie parents say they don’t check their kids’ history on websites they have visited. Parents need to become more involved – the price of failure can be heartbreaking.

When Presidents Say Too Much

America is the King of the Pendant, the place where even the smallest of snide asides, or misplaced word said in jest, or seriousness, by a prominent figure can be blown out of proportion and treated differently if Joe Public has said it.

Former US President Ronald Reagan caused an international incident in August 1984 when a joke he made at a radio sound check stating ‘My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia (sic) forever. We begin bombing in five minutes. “, put the Soviet Union’s Far East Army on alert

Then there was the time respected financial journal Bloomberg reported that Apple CEO Steve Jobs had passed away. Luckily it was pulled before any damage could be done to the company’s share price.

Another well-known incident was Politically Incorrect host Bill Maher when talking about the 9-11 hijackers. He said, in response to one of the panelists on his show saying the people responsible for flying the airplanes into the World Trade Centre Towers weren’t cowards: “We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That’s cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly. You’re right.” The show was then cancelled.

I draw this to your attention because last week, current President Barack Obama criticised Microsoft’s Xbox 360 console and called for parents to “put away the Xbox” for the sake of their kids, during a speech celebrating the 100th anniversary of the NAACP.

Now, you could argue that President Obama has the right to say what he likes, however, he also needs to consider the impact that his statements can have on business. I’m not trying to defend Microsoft, or the Xbox, or any gaming console for that matter, and its affect on society as a whole. I mean, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are never going to win the argument that gaming consoles are great for your health, even if they are now producing interactive games.

But if a prominent figure is going to single out one console, then he needs to mention them all, or none at all. To its credit, Microsoft didn’t hide from the issue and said that while it saw President Obama’s point of view, it did point out that it was the only console on the market that had a timing feature so parents can track their child’s usage and put time limits on when they play games.

Are prominent figures allowed a point of view? Of course they are. I guess my point is; they need to be fair and balanced about it.

Censorship of Censorship Ad….How Strange…

The Censordyne ad has been getting quite a bit of publicity lately. For those that don’t know, the ad was created by an anti-censorship group called GetUp, which objects to the Federal Government’s attempts to put restraints on the internet. It is a play on the Sensodyne toothpast advertisement.

As well as being quite a clever ad, it seems to have raised the ire of Qantas by being pulled from the company’s internal flights. GetUp are claiming censorship of their censorship ads, which, while ironic, could also be true.

Some are saying there are Machevallian forces at work with The Australian newspaper saying that Kevin Rudd’s former chief of staff, David Epstein, who is now head of corporate affairs for Qantas, might have had a say in whether the ads were run or not. He denies it and claims he was out of the country (you don’t have an email account, are on Twitter, or have a phone Mr Epstein?), but I am interested in the wider issue.

Why has Qantas banned the ad? Because of its political nature apparently. However, isn’t what Qantas doing also a sort of censorship? And where does it stop? If Channel 7 owner doesn’t like a particular ad because of its political connotation can he pull it? Yes he can. His nemesis of years gone by Kerry Packer was known for pulling programmes he didn’t like.

I’d like to think that any form of media – whether it be radio, television, film, the net or advertising would only subject to censorship that are reflected in the mores and morals of a society that is, at its heart, democratic. You would hope institutions and companies who benefit from such a system, would not then censor a person’s political opinion, especially if they have paid for it. I think Qantas falls short in this case.