Obama inauguration speech: a historic moment for gay and lesbian equality

Written by Marcus O’Donnell, Lecturer, Program Convenor Journalism at the University of Wollongong.

Obama wove the story of gay rights into the language of America’s founding fathers during his inauguration speech. EPA/Shawn Thew

 

Much has been made of the fact President Obama became the first president to mention the word gay in an inaugural address. But the significance lies not in what he said but how he said it.

In declaring, “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law” Obama not only declared himself abstractly for “gay rights”, he placed these rights at the heart of the central ideals of the American story.

Obama’s whole speech sprung from his reiteration of the much sung hymn to equality from the Declaration of Independence which he quoted at the start of his speech: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. Presidents and other American orators are fond of quoting this lodestone of the American dream, so it is not surprise that Obama should refer to it.

But his speech was much more telling because he made clear that he took those words as a call to action: “For history tells us that while these truths maybe self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth”.

Again, a rousing call to act for freedom and equality is common place in the American presidential tradition. Obama’s distinctive play on this came with his declaration that securing equality and freedom entailed both a steadfast commitment to the founding father’s vision and embracing intelligent changes in the light of contemporary challenges. “But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”.

Obama’s riff on gay and lesbian rights then begins in a very specific way which very skillfully links it to both adaptation to new challenges and collective action: “We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth”.

In this extraordinary declaration, Obama not only declares that adapting to, and fighting for, gay and lesbian rights is important, but that the fight for these rights, which stems from the 1969 Stonewall riots, should be placed on the same footing as the fight for women’s rights at Seneca Falls and the fight for racial equality at Selma. Here the president effectively placed the fight for gay and lesbian rights within the myth of the ongoing American revolution.

This leads to an explicit call for gay and lesbian equality in the next paragraph: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well”.

Obama goes further here than any of his predecessors would have dared. This is not just a call for equality under the law, it is a carefully phrased call for same sex marriage: “the love we commit to one another must be equal as well”.

Obama has recently declared his support for same sex marriage, so this is not a new statement. But his inclusion of such a statement in an inaugural address, a key ritual moment of American democracy, and his inclusion of this declaration in the context of the fight for women’s and civil rights marks yet another milestone in the story of gay and lesbian citizenship.

The fight for marriage equality faces several key tests in the US this year, the most significant of which are the cases before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, both of which define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman.

One of the ongoing pressure points in American public debate has been around so called “judicial-activism” on social issues. In opposing such “activism” conservative legal scholars often adhere to a doctrine called “originalism”, which proclaims that any constitutional judgement must aim to get as close as possible to the original meaning of the words of the founding fathers when interpreting the constitution.

In this carefully crafted speech, Obama not only laid a claim for gay and lesbian equality and same sex marriage; he was laying a claim that any constitutional value of equality does not have an original or fundamentalist meaning, rather one that constantly evolves.

This is fundamentally at odds with our own Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who appeals to the importance of tradition and “heritage” in her own refusal to acknowledge the marriage rights of gay and lesbian Australians.

Traditions only continue to have meaning when they are reinterpreted and made relevant by each generation. Obama’s inauguration speech was an inspiring attempt to do this. Let’s hope his actions over the next four years are equally inspiring.

Originally posted on The Conversation

All washed up: have surf megabrands forgotten their roots?

By Andrew Warren, Post-Doctoral Researcher at University of Wollongong and Chris Gibson, Professor of Human Geography at University of Wollongong.

Australia’s surf megabrands — once thriving cultural icons — are now facing a changing tide of fortunes.

 

Yesterday’s announcement that iconic brand Rip Curl plans to sell-up raises the question: just what has happened to Australia’s iconic surf brands?

It has been well publicised that the big three surf labels – Rip Curl, Quiksilver and Billabong – have experienced shrinking sales and expanding debts. Suburban consumers have turned away from expensive surf-branded apparel. Coupled with the rise of online shopping, doubts are growing about the future viability of corporatised surf brands.

Raw economics certainly matters to the surf industry. The big three have been hit hard by recession in the United States and Europe, where they have concentrated most of their retail investment. Their timing was terrible. Just before the GFC, Quiksilver and Billabong both expanded their business operations. Billabong bought up a substantial number of surf retail outlets. Quiksilver acquired, and has since had to sell, a series of non-surf leisure brands – including Rossignol skis and Cleveland Golf equipment. Expansion added huge debts, which became difficult to finance when retail returns evaporated.

A subcultural industry

We think the problems facing the big three can also be explained through understanding surfing subculture. From informal beginnings shaping boards in backyard workshops and tool sheds, the selling of the surf remains strongly influenced by subcultural values and fashion cycles within the surfing scene.

In our new book on the surf industry, to be published next year by University of Hawaii Press, we make the point that, like music, it is a subcultural industry defined by a tension between “major” corporate labels and smaller “independents”. Independent labels have more credibility because they are considered closer to the grassroots of surfing culture. They are often based in specific surf cities and regions – southern California, the Gold Coast, north shore O’ahu – where surf subcultures are strong.

When brands grow and expand, they take on the character of corporate enterprises. The listing of Quiksilver on the NYSE in 1998 and Billabong on the ASX in 2000 signalled abrupt changes to the existing structure of the surf industry. Rightly or wrongly, many surfers felt that profitability and capital growth became more important than fulfilling surfer’s needs and desires. Surf companies have up-scaled production, acquired smaller brands, opened flagship retail stores and supplied stock to department stores. Quiksilver now supplies their surf-wear to department chain Macy’s in the United States and David Jones in Australia. Increasing market share is the goal, to pay shareholders dividends. Brand visibility to the masses is everything. But this undermines the claim to service local roots and the needs of every-day surfers.

Undermining credibility

The marketing of surfing’s cool image has allowed companies to sell the surf to a wider range of consumers. Despite its inland geography, in 2010 the US mid-west region was worth a remarkable $457 million in surf retail sales. The trade-off is that selling surf-wear through department stores undermines scarcity and subcultural value. Brand credibility falters.

This is not new. In the 1960s surf, labels Ocean Pacific and Hang Ten successfully diversified from surfboards and board shorts into different types of surf and swimwear. Yet in the 1980s, when their products moved out of surf shops and into department stores, subcultural affiliation collapsed. The big three now appear to be heading in the same direction.

When scarcity value is lost, other independent labels fill the niche. They look much more authentic and responsive by comparison. Their surfboards, clothes and apparel are harder to find, raising scarcity value. Independent brands appear rooted in surfing cities and regions. Corporate surf firms, by contrast, appear placeless and “uncool”. In time, the “majors” swallow up newer, smaller “independents” (as happened with RVCA, Palmers, Dakine and Von Zipper), temporarily leveraging their street cred. But the cycle starts all over again.

Differences and divergences

While the big three surf brands clearly face hardship, it is wrong to assume that all three are the same, or are equally doomed. Quiksilver and Billabong are listed companies. Responsibilities to shareholders and investors will influence future business planning. Any restructuring of Billabong and Quiksilver, or recapturing of their subcultural cachet, is unlikely to involve winding back stock from department store shelves. The recent appointment of former Target CEO Launa Inman as head of Billabong confirms this.

Rip Curl, on the other hand, remains privately owned. Whether this grants more flexibility to maintain ways of doing business that retain credibility and profitability is moot. Nevertheless, Rip Curl maintains a stronger strategic focus on surf “hardwear”: wetsuits and surfboard retail. Despite a dramatic fall in the last 12 months, Rip Curl remains profitable.

Surfing industry, surfing subculture

Broader economic conditions have gutted the performance of Australia’s largest surf brands. But macroeconomic conditions do not explain the full story. Surfing is a subculture, not an anonymous market for run-of-the-mill consumer goods. Given Australia’s strong connection to surfing, demand for surf products and equipment will endure. Newer, edgier brands will emerge and compete for market share. Whether the big three Australian firms can adapt and maintain their connections to surfing subcultures will be interesting to watch. Beyond the shopping mall, the key to understanding surf capitalism is watching the unfurling logics of its subculture.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Do Social Media Influence Our Travel Decisions?

Associate Professor Ulrike Gretzel

From the success of social networking sites to the explosion in user-generated content, we have seen a dramatic shift in how consumers interact with the internet and with each other. Social media have transformed the way people communicate, search for information, make decisions, socialise, learn, and share experiences.  This also applies to consumer behaviour in travel and tourism. 

Growing numbers of travellers search and consume travel information created by other travellers for their travel planning and then share their experiences when they return from their trips. Given the experiential nature of tourism, the information created by other travellers is even more important and influential in the search and decision-making process than when considering other types of purchases. 

Over the past four years we have conducted a series of studies involving travellers with Internet access from around the world. We consistently find high levels of social media use for travel planning. 

Online travel reviews, such as the hotel reviews posted on TripAdvisor, are particularly popular sources of information and those who use them indicate that these traveller opinions greatly influence their accommodation choices. Activity choices and restaurant decisions are also increasingly affected by the opinions of review writers while decisions on where to travel are typically made before reviews are consulted. 

Other social media types such videos and podcasts are generally less influential, although gender and age differences come into play when looking at the influence of specific social media categories. 

Do travellers blindly trust the opinions of strangers?
Our research indicates that trust levels are very high and that a considerable number of people even prefer the opinions of unknown others over opinions of friends and relatives. However, many consumers are also aware of marketers posting reviews or paying professional review writers. They have therefore developed rather sophisticated strategies for evaluating whether they should take a posting into account or not. 

In general, if comments are too negative or too positive, travellers become suspicious. They are looking for balance and details and take subtle cues such as spelling and tone of writing into account. Experimental studies we conducted have also shown that individuals are pretty good at detecting false reviews, and this ability increases with the length of the review.

So like in the offline world, liars will only be able to influence travellers if they are brief. We also find personality differences, with individuals who exhibit neurotic tendencies being less trusting of social media and thus less influenced by them.

Do tourism marketers have to worry?
Our studies find that a majority of travellers think that social media contents are more up-to-date, more fun to read, more interesting, more relevant, more comprehensive, more specific and more helpful in making decisions than information provided by tourism marketers. However, that does not mean that marketers do no longer provide an important function. The travellers we surveyed actually trust social media content more if it is provided on official destination marketing websites.

This is a counter-intuitive finding but makes sense if you consider that destination marketers probably subject social media contents to a basic editorial process, or would at least comment on a posting if it provided false information.

In general, our research shows that tourism marketers can no longer ignore social media and have to carefully think about how to take advantage of social media marketing in order to exercise influence on travellers.

Social media are here to stay but their specific forms will evolve. Twitter and location-based social media applications like Foursquare and Gowalla are still in their infancy and Facebook continuously adds functions and changes its policies. It is important to monitor their impact on travel planning and behaviours at destinations, so that those who try to encourage and/or manage tourism to particular places can adjust their strategies.

Written by Associate Professor Ulrike Gretzel
The Institute for Innovation in Business and Social Research (IIBSoR)
Faculty of Commerce

A geological excursion to the Shakey Isles and an account of the Christchurch Earthquake

Rock fall following the Christchurch 6.3 earthquake. Source http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2011/02/23/on-the-causes-of-the-high-levels-of-loss-in-the-christchurch-earthquake/

Posted 28 February 2011

Last week 11 students and staff from the School of Earth & Environmnetal Sciences (SEES) returned from a geological fieldtrip to the South Island of New Zealand to investigate active tectonic processes including the fault rupture from the magnitude 7.0 earthquake in Christchurch last September. Little did we know that a second large earthquake (magnitude 6.3) would devastate much of Christchurch only 5 days after our return highlighting the unpredictability associated with seismic hazards. 

The fieldtrip was organised by two SEES PhD students, Steph Kermode and Nathan Jankowski, who head up the student social group – GROUNDSWELL and was supported by SEES staff Brian Jones and Solomon Buckman. The students included a mix of postgraduates and undergraduates from all levels. The purpose of the trip was to observe active tectonic and glacial processes that have sculpted the landscape in New Zealand that are not readily observable in the relatively stable Australian continent. The long-term aim is to run this fieldtrip each year as an intensive field-based summer subject in which students can get first hand experience of active geological processes including volcanoes, geothermal power stations, glaciers and faults associated with active mountain building.   

The landscapes and mountains of New Zealand are incredibly young with most of the relief having formed in only the last 5 million years. This is in stark contrast to the Australian continent that has not experienced any major mountain building activity for the past 200 million years and subsequently been eroded down to a vast, flat continent. Despite the contrast, Australia and New Zealand share a common geological origin as they were joined together 85 million years ago as a part of the supercontinent Gondwana. Between 85-45 million years ago New Zealand rifted away from Australia creating the Tasman Sea that now seperates the two continents. New Zealand is situated directly on the boundary between the Australian and Pacific plates making it a particularly active in terms of volcanic and seismic activity. In the North Island the Pacific Plate is moving to the east and subducting (sinking) beneath the North Island resulting in the development of an active volcanic arc and a deep sea trench to the east which extends all the way to Tonga. To the south subduction has flipped with the Australian Plate subducting beneath the South Island to form the Macquarie Ridge and Southern Alps. In between the North and South Islands is an intense zone of faulting where the New Zealand continent is being wrenched apart by the Alpine Fault. This is a major transform (strike-slip) plate boundary and has been active for the past 25 million years. The Alpine Fault consists of many subsiduary fault splays along its length. The big surprise with the Christchurch earthquakes has been the fact that Christchurch has not experienced large or regular earthquakes in historic times and that the fault line has not been identified  due to it being buried by thick sequences of river sediment that has been eroded off the Southern Alps. Christchurch is also quite a distance from the Alpine Fault which may have built a collectively false sense of security. New Zealand is referred to as the Shakey Isles for good reason. It sits on the Pacific Rim of fire and is subject to regular, intense seismic activity as the tectonic plates jostle and collide with each other.

It was clearly evident when we visited Christchurch that it was still rebuilding from the September 3, 2010 magnitude 7.0 earthquake that struck 45 km west of the city in the rural outskirts of Roleston. It is important to realize that the Richter scale used to measure the magnitude of earthquakes is a base-ten logarithmic scale so an earthquake measuring 5.0 has a shaking amplitude ten times that of an earthquake of magnitude 4.0. However, the total energy released is 33.3 times the amount for a difference of 1. Put simply a difference of 2 on the Richter scale results in about 1000 times the amount of total energy released. Most movement on faults is accommodated by large earthquakes. Unfortunately earthquakes remain difficult to predict in the short time-scales useful to people due to the numerous variables – build up of stress, time since last rupture, water saturation of the fault plane and most importantly the fact that earthquakes generally occur 10’s to 100’s km below the surface where we cannot make direct observations of the physical conditions. Geologists rely solely on geophysical and seismic data to interpret conditions and structures deep in the lithosphere.

We visited the fault rupture and although the roads had been repaired the 4 m offset of roads, fences, hedges and canals was clear to see as well as numerous cracks and compressional mounds along the fault trace. It was also evident that many of the locals weren’t happy with the attention they were getting from passers by like us who wanted to stop and view the fault. There was a real sense amongst Cantebrians that they were lucky to get away without any loss of life after the first earthquake. Unfortunately that was not the case with the recent earthquake in which the death toll has just passed 100 and there are still over 200 people missing.

The epicenter of the February 21, 2011 magnitude 6.3 earthquake was only 5 km from the centre of Christchurch with the epicenter centred on Lettelton.  Because of proximity to the epicenter and the shallow depth (5 km) of the hypocentre, ground shaking in Christchurch was much more severe for this latest earthquake than for the larger magnitude 7 event in September. Ground accelerations were unusually high for this event, probably due to the shallow depth of the earthquake hypocenter and the thick unconsolidated substrate of wet mud and sand that much of Christchurch is built on. Compared to solid rock, sands and muds have the effect of slowing and amplifying seismic waves as they travel through the earth resulting in greater shaking. Wet sediments are also prone to liquefaction when shaken which means they suddenly change from behaving as a solid during normal conditions to a liquid during an earthquake. During an earthquake liquid sand or mud can spew out of cracks in the ground and flow down roads and collect in depressions and drainage networks. Heavy buildings and structures will tend to sink and become unstable during liquefaction if they do not have adequately engineered foundations. Typically ground shaking is in the order of 25%g  for a magnitude 6.3 earthquake but the Christchurch earthquake produced shaking of up to 188%g. To put this in perspective, any shaking above 100%g is enough to overcome the acceleration of gravity and start throwing objects up in the air! Although New Zealand has a very strong and strictly enforced earthquake building code, this level of shaking resulted in severe and widespread damage. The Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (I-XII) is used to measure damage based on observations and interviews. Levels of IX to X were recorded around the epicenter which means intense to violent damage of well-built stuctures and damage or destruction of some well built wooden structures. Most houses are built of wood in New Zealand because it is much more flexible and resistant to earthquakes than brittle brick structures. Unfortunately, aftershocks can occur for many months after an event creating dangerous conditions in already weakened structures. The other aspect is that where stress is released by an earthquake it can result in increased stress along other faults segments resulting in an “unzipping” effect as stress in the crust is redistributed and comes to a new equilibrium. This appears to be the case with this second magnitude 6.3 earthquake following the magnitude 7.0 earthquake last year some 45 km further west.

Part of my research involves investigating evidence of ancient earthquakes (Paleoseismology) in areas of Australia that are prone to seismic activity and I have a PhD student – Chulantha Jayawardena, investigating active faults in the Adelaide region. Although Australia is relatively stable compared to New Zealand it is still affected by earthquakes as evident by the magnitude 5.6 Newcastle earthquake in 1989 and the magnitude 5.4 Adelaide earthquake in 1954. Earthquakes in Australia are referred to as intraplate earthquakes as they do not occur on plate boundaries and are much less understood and certainly less predictable in terms of their distribution. The danger with these intraplate earthquakes is that they may have long recurrence intervals of 100’s or 1000’s of years before the crustal stresses build up enough to rupture and generate an earthquake and they can strike areas that are underprepared for such events. We are investigating active faults along the margins of the Mount Lofty and Flinders ranges in South Australia by way of trenching, mapping and using ground penetrating radar to identify previous ruptures. Some of these faults have rupture lengths and offsets of single events that suggest magnitudes in the order of 5-7 on the richter scale. Part of our research involves dating these paleoseismic events by sampling the sediments that have accumulated adjacent to the fault rupture using luminescence dating techniques (OSL) to further constrain the timing of past earthquakes. Identifying hidden fault lines and constraining the timing of past seismic events is of fundamental importance in understanding how mountains such as the Flinders Ranges form in intraplate settings and of course it has important practical implications in terms of planning and implementing appropriate building codes in earthquake prone regions of Australia.

Earthquakes are a global hazard that knows no political boundaries. Earthquake response and rescue efforts are often globally assisted and require the expertise of many disciplines including engineers, geologists, planners, medics, police and emergency response personnel. Earthquake mitigation is an ongoing process from the initial identification of faults and historic seismic activity, through to developing appropriate building codes, to the rescue efforts when these hazards strike through to planning for the next event. The tectonic processes so evident in New Zealand provide an important modern-day analogue in terms of understanding how older continents like Australia have been shaped and formed in the past.

For further information please contact Dr. Solomon Buckman solomon@uow.edu.au in the School  of Earth & Environmental Sciences

Agency ignores those on front line: self-regulating advertising industry

Prof. Sandra Jones

ADVERTISING in Australia has been self-regulated since 1996.

Self-regulation is the process whereby the advertising industry participates in and is responsible for its own regulation, as opposed to government regulation or co-regulation by government and industry.

The Australian Association of National Advertisers’ advertiser code of ethics covers all forms of advertising and is administered by the Advertising Standards Bureau. There are also separate codes for some specific product categories such as alcohol and for specific audience groups such as the AANA code for advertising to children.

Still, repeated studies of self-regulatory systems in Australia and overseas have concluded that industry self-regulation tends to be largely ineffective in protecting people — particularly young people — from inappropriate advertising messages. They also find that an effective system requires an independent body with the power to veto advertisements and impose sanctions.

That’s why public health advocates often express concern about the role and nature of advertising in Australia, and the influence of this advertising on the health of Australians. For example, there’s a large body of evidence showing that food advertising to children encourages consumption of unhealthy foods, that alcohol advertising encourages young people to drink alcohol at an earlier age and in greater quantities, and that advertising for pharmaceutical products encourages reliance on medication rather than healthy lifestyle changes.

Unfortunately, despite repeated reviews of the self-regulatory system, which have consistently found that it’s ineffective in preventing young people from being exposed to inappropriate messages about alcohol, food and other health-related products, the government has declined to take action on the regulation of advertising.

The Advertising Standards Board is the agency responsible for addressing consumer complaints about advertising. The ASB recently undertook a review “to understand community and industry perceptions about the independent reviewer system as it currently operates, so that ASB may improve and enhance the system and ensure compliance with international best practice as foreshadowed in 2008″.

Those fortunate enough to receive an invitation to participate had until October 22 to respond to the issues paper. They were also told that others invited to participate included all individuals and organisations that requested a review of a board decision or who had contacted ASB regarding the process; other organisations or people who’ve expressed interest in this system, including other industry bodies, government agencies, incorporated bodies, media, educational institutions; and independent reviewers.

It’s, well, peculiar that I wasn’t invited to participate given that I’ve frequently expressed interest in the self-regulatory system, have published several articles on problems with the process and outcomes, and am well-known to the ASB.

Yet I found out about the review only when one of my students happened across it on the ASB website and forwarded the information to me. However, I did contact the ASB and obtained an extension of time to enable me to submit comments. But I was surprised at my omission from the list of invitees in the first place.

I was even more surprised when I mentioned this review to a group of colleagues at a roundtable on alcohol advertising on October 22, the due date for responses.

None of my colleagues were aware of this review being undertaken. And they’re a group of high-level representatives from government agencies, incorporated bodies and educational institutions, all of whom also had publicly expressed interest in the self-regulation process.

Meanwhile, the ASB assures us on its website that self-regulation “ensures consumer protection”.

The subject of the recent review — possible changes to the independent reviewer system — is of great importance to consumers and to organisations focused on protecting consumers from inappropriate advertising.

Topics covered in the issues paper included the cost of applying for an independent review — presently $500 for community members, $1000 for nonprofit organisations– the timeframe for review and the grounds for review. These are issues that have a serious effect on the general community’s ability to seek review of an ASB decision that they think is flawed.

For instance, nonprofit organisations such as the Cancer Council Victoria cite the $1000 fee as a significant reason for not seeking review of a questionable decision on a complaint regarding food advertising.

When high-profile individuals and organisations with a long history of interest in, and commentary on, self-regulation of Australian advertising are not invited to comment — despite the inference in the ASB’s communications that this was the case — I can only wonder how other, less well-resourced members of the community will have been able to contribute their opinions.

If, as the ASB tells us on its website, “the aim of self-regulation is to maintain high advertising standards and ensure consumer trust and protection for the benefit of all of the community”, then once again what’s been demonstrated is that the present system is inherently flawed.

Sandra Jones is director of the Centre for Health Initiatives and a professor at the University of Wollongong.

Everything I need to know about my health is on TV – but most of it is wrong

Professor Sandra Jones, Director of the Centre for Health Initiatives, UOW

The average Australian home has 2.6 people & 2.8 televisions. We watch TV for more than 2 hours a day, and between 7.00pm and 8.00pm, 44% of us are watching TV. We spend 16 hours each week on the Internet, 9 hours listening to the radio, 5 hours watching DVDs, 3 hours reading the newspaper and 2 hours reading magazines. There is now so much media in our lives that we often use them at the same time, with almost two-thirds of Australians watching TV while they use the Internet.

Much of what we know – or think we know – about our health comes from watching television, reading newspapers and magazines, and surfing the Internet. However, decades of research into health information in entertainment programs, news coverage, and advertising shows that most of this information is confusing, misleading or just plain wrong.

If you talk to many people about autism they will tell you that it is caused by vaccination. This is not correct. There have been lots of well-designed and carefully controlled studies that have proven for certain that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. So, why do so many people believe that vaccination ‘makes children autistic’? Most of them saw it on TV or read it in a book.

Those scientific studies were published in leading academic journals, so they were probably read by a few thousand academics. When television stations around the world broadcast an episode of Eli Stone in which the fictional lawyer represented a mother suing a pharmaceutical company for ‘causing’ her child’s autism more than 5 million Americans and more than 1 million Australians were watching. When Jodi Picoult wrote in ‘House Rules’ that vaccination caused the young Jacob to develop autism almost overnight, millions of people around the world were reading (and even more will watch if they make it into a movie). In America, an actress named Jenny McCarthy is attracting a huge amount of media coverage, even appearing on the Oprah show. Ms McCarthy is not a doctor or a scientist – she is Jim Carrey’s girlfriend – but when she claims that vaccination causes autism, millions of women around the world will be convinced not to vaccinate their children.

So why does this matter? It matters because high rates of vaccination had virtually eliminated diseases like mumps, measles and whooping cough in countries like Australia. Each time stories like this appear in the media, parents stop getting their children vaccinated. Some of these children will develop preventable diseases and become extremely ill. Others will spread the infection to babies who are too young to be immunized and some of these babies will die.

Cancer is another popular topic for news and entertainment media. Women’s magazines frequently provide in-depth coverage of celebrities’ battles with cancer. Soap operas kill off characters by having them develop fatal cancers, or show their strength by having them survive cancer (often so they can be struck down with another fatal disease in the next season). Newspapers and magazines tell us every month of another ‘cause’ of cancer, and at the same time report another ‘scientific breakthrough’ that will eliminate cancer.

Unfortunately, much of what the media tells us about cancer is misleading or just plain wrong. The biggest risk factor for breast cancer is increasing age – the older you are the greater the risk – but readers of women’s magazines are regularly presented with stories of very young women with breast cancer and, as a result, many women believe that risk is highest when they are young.

Why does the media get it wrong? Sometimes its because journalists, editors or authors sensationalise stories to get our attention. Sometimes its because scientists and researchers provide the media with confusing or misleading information. Sometimes its because there is conflicting evidence, with ‘experts’ arguing for different points of view.

 So what can we do to sort the good information from the misinformation? Professor Jones will be speaking at the Uni in Brewery on 25^th August from 5:30 at the Five Islands Brewery. In her presentation she will discuss some of the misinformation in the media, reasons why the media gets it wrong, and how we can more critically interpret the information we receive. For more information visit http://www.uow.edu.au/research/unibrewery/UOW075583.html