Month: September 2021

Last week NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced an end to the state’s daily COVID press conferences – as it documented record new infections and deaths. Instead, she said, the government would provide prepared videos.

Despite surging numbers and her locked-down constituents suffering mental anguish – the Premier said she would abandon the daily opportunities for politicians and health authorities to be questioned by journalists in person – stating “I will turn up when I need to”…

The move has been described as a serious abrogation of responsibility, a dereliction of duty  – especially as these regular face-to-face events may be the only opportunity to hold the government to account during the current crisis, when lock-down decisions are made by a small group of ministers in secret.

On the other hand, some suggest that the end of daily COVID pressers may be bad news for journalists it, it might be good for journalism.

To discuss this, I’m joined by journalism expert Denis Muller – Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne…

How do you see this move by the NSW Premier to stop the daily press conference? Is this hindering the role of the Fourth Estate? What even is the fourth estate?

80 percent of Australians are social media users – Yet while platforms like Facebook, Insta and twitter may indeed connect and inform us – enabling us to share content and comments about content – it is also a place for offensive commentary.

We’ve all seen or been victims of hurtful, defamatory troll comments – often by anonymous users.

What do we mean by defamatory? Anything that could injure a person’s reputation can be defamatory. So, if a comment on Facebook brings a person into contempt, disrepute or ridicule, that maybe considered defamatory – and has legal ramifications.

But who is liable for defamatory comments?

Last week, in a landmark case, the high court ruled that media outlets are legally responsible as the “publishers” of user comments on their Facebook pages.

And this decision could have far-reaching consequences for social media users throughout Australia.

In essence anyone who runs a social media page can hypothetically be sued over derogatory comments — even if you aren’t aware of the comment…

To discuss this I’m joined by Dr David Rolph – Professor of Law, University of Sydney.

According to a newly published report, it seems 1 in 10 Australian University students are paying others to do their assignments. RTR’s Allan Boyd caught up with senior lecturer Guy Curtis to discuss the concept of Contract Cheating…

New research shows that 10 percent of Australian university students are contract cheating – four times the rate than previously thought.
Contract cheating involves paying other people to do your uni work and then submitting it as if it were your own. This practice includes sitting exams and essay-writing – referred to as ‘ghost-writing’. And it seems the practice is on the rise…

Incidents of contract cheating have hit the media, such as the MyMaster scandal which involved thousands of students employing a Sydney company to write essays and assignments for them – as well as sit online tests – and paying up to 1000 bucks for the service.

And whilst previous research has suggested between 2 and 4 percent of Australian university students handed in work written by contractors – new research suggests it’s more like 10 percent – and they’re getting away with it.

To discuss this, I’m joined by Dr Guy Curtis – Senior Lecturer in Applied Psychology, at UWA… whose article was published in the Conversation.

The so called Identify and Disrupt bill was recently passed by the federal government. It enables officers to covertly hack into your online accounts, impersonate you and disrupt or modify your data. Indymedia’s Allan Boyd caught up with Kathryn Gledhill-Tucker – Nyungar technologist and digital rights activist currently serving on the board of Electronic Frontiers Australia.

Last month a federal government bill to create new police powers to spy on criminal suspects online, disrupt their data and take over their accounts was passed in the senate.

The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill proposes, among other things, that officers could take control of an online account and impersonate someone.

The bill allows officers to disrupt data by modifying, adding, copying or deleting information in order to frustrate suspected criminal activity.
The government claims the new powers would mainly target terrorists, paedophiles and drug traffickers operating online.

Despite the intention to catch bad guys, and with some limited amendments, digital rights activists are not convinced the bill goes far enough to protect vulnerable internet users.

To help us understand what’s going on here I’m joined by Kathryn Gledhill-Tucker – Nyungar technologist and digital rights activist currently serving on the board of Electronic Frontiers Australia, and campaigner for human rights across movements…

Here’s a really good discussion with Dr Monique Mann and Angus Murray on the efa website.