Violence against women and Sports “Stars”: trial by media or special treatment?

I have watched with a rising level of dismay the coverage of the current allegations made against a footballer from the South Sydney Rabbitohs Rugby League club, Ben Te’o. The incident in question happened some 5 weeks ago and was the subject of a police complaint that was, apparently, investigated to a conclusion that no charges would be laid. Then Channel 9 broke the “exclusive” last week via an interview with the victim of the alleged assault. This lead to a media frenzy that included the revelation about the conduct of the investigation the first time around. Today, amongst another media circus, the victim has made a statement to the police and then been dealt with for outstanding warrants and the alleged attacker has refused to be questioned by the media at a press conference for the Queensland State of Origin team. I know this because my twitter feed has been filled with seemingly minute by minute updates of the statement, the appearance before court and the failure to be questioned.

Let me be clear: domestic violence and violence against women in any form is abhorrent. There is never and nor should there ever be an excuse for such violence. Those making statements about the character of the victim need to shut up and let due process take its course.

What I am massively concerned about in this case and that which has led me to write this blog is the manner with which this particular alleged case of violence against a woman has been dealt with by the media. That is what I want to focus on today.

First some statistics; the ABS Personal Safety Survey 2005, which defined violence as any incident involving the occurrence, attempt or threat of either physical or sexual assault, found:
•since the age of 15, two percent of women (160 000) and one per cent of men (68 100) had experienced violence from a current partner
•since the age of 15, some 15 per cent of women (1 135 500) and five per cent of men (367 300) had experienced violence from a former partner
•Seven per cent of men (485 400) and three per cent of women (242 000) were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey
•of those women who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey, 31 per cent (73 800) were physically assaulted by a current and/or previous partner compared with four per cent (21 200) of men
•almost two thirds of men who were physically assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey (66 per cent or 319 100) nominated a stranger as the perpetrator, compared with 22 per cent of women (52 900)
•in the 12 months prior to the survey, 1.3 per cent of women (101 600) and 0.6 per cent of men (42 300) were sexually assaulted and
•of those who were sexually assaulted in the 12 months prior to the survey, 21 per cent of women (21 500) reported that the perpetrator was a previous partner; eight per cent (7 800) reported that the perpetrator was a current partner. No males reported sexual assault by a current or previous partner.

Later ABS surveys have found similar results. Further the Australian component of the IVAWS in 2002–03 employed a broader definition of violence, measuring physical violence (including threats), sexual violence (including unwanted sexual touching) and psychological violence (including controlling behaviours such, as put downs and keeping track of whereabouts). The survey found:
•34 per cent of women who had a current or former intimate partner (including boyfriends) experienced at least one form of violence from a partner during their lifetime (since the age of 16).
•31 per cent of women who had a current or former intimate partner experienced physical violence and an estimated 12 per cent suffered sexual violence from a partner during their lifetime.
•Of the women who had a current or former intimate partner, six per cent reported that their partner had forced them to have sexual intercourse at some stage during their lifetime; this is the most common form of sexual violence perpetrated by intimate partners. A further three per cent of these women reported that their partners had attempted to force them to have sexual intercourse and four per cent experienced unwanted sexual touching.
•Of the women who were in a current relationship (spouse, de facto partner, or boyfriend), ten per cent reported that they had experienced violence from their current partner over their lifetime, and three per cent over the past 12 months. Physical violence was more commonly reported (nine per cent, lifetime) than sexual violence (one per cent, lifetime).
•Almost four in ten women (between 37 and 40 per cent) who were in a current relationship reported experiencing at least one type of controlling behaviour over their lifetime; six per cent experienced controlling behaviour in the past 12 months.
•Women experienced higher levels of violence from a previous partner than a current partner. Of women who have had a past relationship, 36 per cent reported experiencing violence from a previous partner over their lifetime, compared with ten per cent for a current partner.
•Previous partners were also reported as perpetrating more severe violence than current male partners. For example, less than one per cent of women in a current relationship reported that their current partner had used or threatened to use a knife or gun on them. However, six per cent of women who had a former relationship reported that their previous partner had used or threatened to use one of these weapons on them.

(All of the foregoing has been reproduced from a Background Note published by the Australian Federal Department of parliamentary Services entitled “Domestic violence in Australia—an overview of the issues” authored by Liesl Mitchell).

You are probably asking what the relevance of this data is to the current situation involving Ben Te’o? Well the answer is simple: how many of the other victims / perpetrators of domestic violence captured in the statistics above faced a lead story on every news service in Australia (well Queensland and New South Wales) and then had the giving of their statement become an event live tweeted?

Herein lies my major objection to the way this matter has been dealt with by the media: for every domestic violence incident reported as an exclusive on Channel 9 there are a plethora of such cases that never reach the media let alone the lead story. Why? Because those cases do not involve a sports “star” of any note. To me this creates a whole poultice of issues including but not limited to the complete lack of due process that now could possibly follow if Mr Te’o is charged and the matter proceeds through the courts. How is Te’o supposed to defend himself and, indeed, find a jury that has not pre-judged the case? More to the point, we now have a victim who also has become a cause celebre and has faced the ire of fans and friends of Te’o which one could only expect would be enhanced if charges are actually laid. The media have much to answer for the way they have conducted themselves here.

However, for all of the foregoing, the biggest problem that I have with the reporting of this particular case of domestic violence is the, to my way thinking, monumental lack of respect the television networks, in particular Channel 9, et al have shown to the victims of domestic violence who do not make accusations against sport stars but against individuals from every other walk of life. Where are the lead stories about the plight of those victims? Where are the exclusive interviews? Where is the financial support of the victim? As noted above, violence against women is simply abhorrent. The abhorrence of that conduct has only been exacerbated in the last fortnight by a media that seems to only care about the victims of such violence if their alleged attacker runs around a sports field for a living. Shame on the television networks and media pundits who have created this situation and shame on our society that is so craving of news about “celebrities” that cases such as this are front page news.

I hope for a day when violence against women is not an issue in our society. I am sickened that I believe that that day will never come. I also hope for a day when all victims of such violence are treated fairly and with dignity not because their alleged attacker is a sports star but simply because they are a victim. Given the current state of the media, I have a similar fear that that day will also never be seen in our liftime.

For the love of writing: why blog? Or ought the question be for whom?

I have been seeking some feedback on this blog and some other writing I have been doing recently with a view to improving not only what I write but also the level of readership what I am writing ends up with. I will confess to some frustration that I spend an awfully long time writing a blog for only 50 or so readers to view it.

One question that came up via email from one of the people that I have sought feedback from was this:

Who do you blog for?

In reply to that question I posed a fairly verbose and self indulgent response about writing for the readers. That lead to the retort from my feedback provider that he could tell when I was writing for a particular audience and not for myself or in a topic that I am invested in because the quality of my writing dropped.

This raises a valid issue in my mind: is blogging about one’s audience or oneself? If one is blogging for oneself then do the audience numbers really matter?

The more I have thought about this issue, the more I have come to the realisation that I actually do blog for myself. I feel better when I write and I feel even better when I am writing about something I believe in or am invested in.

Normally at this point I would asking you as readers for forgiveness for writing a such a self indulgent post. To do so would be against the central theme of this post: I am going to write for me from here on in and focus on topics that I am interested in. Readership may drop but finally I think I can say I am not bothered by that.

I think this slight change in mental approach to this blog will help with the regularity of posts and quality of writing. I know I am going to enjoy writing this blog more now that my mindset is to write whatever I want about whatever I want.

Just because I have said that I am not writing for an audience any more does not mean I am not interested in your views about what I write: indeed I hope this slight change in approach will lead to more interaction on this blog or via twitter or via email.

Weight loss challenge? What weight loss challenge?

Hi all,

A personal note here: it struck me during an email discussion with one of the readers of this blog that it is highly like that if you follow this blog alone and not my twitter, tumblr or google + feeds that you may not be aware of my other blog operation100.com so I thought, in an act of shameless self promotion, I would write about it here.

Since 1 January I have been working towards loosing 28.3 kilograms and, as the name of my blog would suggest, the goal of reaching 100kgs (for the American followers out there that converts to roughly 60 pounds lost and a target of 220 pounds).

Here is the most recent update on the blog from my weigh in this morning: Day 148: Weigh in #operation100 | Operation 100
http://operation100.com/2013/05/28/day-148-weigh-in-operation100/

I would be delighted if you could jump over and have a look.

Cheers,
Steve

Sports Gambling and its regulation: the greater good or should the cash be spent elsewhere?

Today, Australia’s Prime Minister, announced a program of reform that purports to ban the advertisement of live odds during sporting telecasts. For those who have not followed the news on this the key aspects of the proposal announced today are:

* A new code will be developed collectively by the government, TV, radio and internet broadcasters that will outline the terms of the “ban” and how, if at all, gambling will be advertised during sporting telecasts.

* As noted in the preamble, the advertisement of live odds will be banned as part of the code proposed.

* Gambling will still be allowed to advertised under the code but will be restricted to breaks in play only.

* Bookmakers will not be allowed to be a part of the telecast of sporting events.

* If the TV, radio and internet broadcasters do not agree to this voluntarily the Prime Minister will seek to fast track legislation bring in the code before the election in September.

To quote Ms Gillard (as reported in the Daily Telegraph):

“Families are sick of gambling getting in the way of the game, that’s why we are acting to get live odds off our screens during all sports broadcasts. Enough is enough. Now we are acting to ensure our kids are talking about who is the best team, not who is the best bet.”

I have two very conflicting views about the introduction of the code / legislation introduced today. Funnily enough though a consideration of both of these views lead me to the same place: that the ban proposed is a monumental waste of money that could be used better for the education of those most at risk to gambling and the addiction that surrounds it.

Let me be upfront here: I have two internet betting accounts albeit both never have a balance of more than $50. I am not a customer of all internet gambling sites but I do read material that is posted on said sites from time to time. I have never placed a “live bet” because nothing frustrates me more than having to make a phone call whilst I am watching sport.

Let me also be clear: I am in no way seeking to diminish the seriousness of gambling addiction or its effects. As a sufferer of addictions, albeit not gambling, I have nothing but the utmost sympathy from those who struggle every minute of every day with the urge to gamble and those who are impacted adversely by gambling in all of its forms.

That said, why do I believe that what was announced today is a waste of money better spent on education? As I note above my reasons are two fold and, of themselves, diametrically opposed:

1. Part of my objection to that which has been proposed today is the intrusion it creates into the individual’s right to choose whether they view advertisements about internet gambling and then act on them. The impingement of that personal right and, by extension, the impingement on the business of the gambling houses is virtually guaranteed in my view to lead to litigation and, if the efforts of the tobacco lobby and companies is anything to go by, the new code or legislation to implement it will be mired in litigation for years to come. Such litigation could range from a constitutional challenge to the validity of any legislation introduced through to, arguably, a tortious claim under the little used tort of interference with contract (the government is, arguably, interfering with the contracts each of the betting houses has with a TV network for example by introducing this code and the betting house could suffer damage as a result). Where does that leave us? With a code or piece of legislation that is the subject of possible repeal and lawyers earning millions of dollars to either keep the legislation in place or to set it aside. That is not to mention the very real prospect of a repeal or change in policy that is likely to arise when the Abbott government comes in.

2. The other part of my objection is directly the opposite to an argument relating to personal freedom and ability to choose. It is simply that if the government is hell bent on the regulation of the advertisement of internet gambling during sporting contests why is it not going further? Does not allowing advertisement of gambling services before, during the breaks of and after games mitigate against the gains made by banning the live odds component of such gambling. Again, if the government wishes spend all of this money on a code / legislative instrument shouldn’t it go further to reduce the risk of children learning about gambling from television ads? The risk of litigation is still there of course but if the government is going to fight about something ought it not be fighting about a comprehensive ban based on its child protection imperative rather than a ban on one particular type of advertising that is not going to stop, at all, the prospect of children seeing ads about gambling rather it just changes the ads?

I know the weight of public opinion is against me here and it would appear that the government has listened to the “tribe” in the introduction of this proposed code / legislation. However, has the government really listened to those it is listening to? How many of those listened to object to the ad on the basis that they are irritating (there must be some … reread Gillard’s first sentence set out above if you need convincing)? Conversely, how many of those listened to object to the ads because of real and empirical evidence of the corruption of children of which Ms Gillard speaks (in the last sentence of the statement reproduced above)?

The argument that the ban is for the greater good does not wash with me: a ban for the greater good would be a ban of the type I note in the second part of my objection to the current proposal; viz, a complete ban of the style introduced relating to cigarette advertising. That is absolutely NOT what the government has proposed.

I give credit to the government for trying to tackle this issue head on but can not agree that this is the best way to go. The money that is going to be spent on this code / legislation could be used to fund a nation wide education program directed at both parents and children about gambling. Such a program could be in schools, could involve ads at the same time as those still being allowed under the code in any event and avoids the litigation risk of a ban on advertising.

One final point: the next time you are in the presence of a smoker aged in the 30 and older bracket ask this question … do you smoke because you saw an ad for Benson and Hedges cigarettes while watching the cricket with your Dad OR do you smoke because you Dad smoked while watching the cricket with you? I know that is a simplistic example but education starts at home so the other thing that obviously needs to occur is the taking of responsibility by parents for their own conduct whilst watching sporting telecasts with their children. It sounds simplistic but surely some responsibility rests with the holder of the remote control to turn of an offending telecast if they do not like the advertising on it! And, further, to not make a phone call to a gambling house whilst sitting on their lounge with their children watching Friday night football!

There are no perfect solutions to the problem of gambling addiction and, in particular, sports gambling. Again, I give credit where it is due for the attempt by the government but maintain that:

1. If the code / legislation is designed to stop children from watching ads about gambling during sport then it fails dismally because it does not ban all such ads.

2. The funds to be spent on the implementation and defence of this “partial” ban would clearly be better spent on the education of those most at risk.

Playing to Win: A life strategy

I have been reading Playing to win: How strategy really works by A G Lafley and Roger L Martin recently as part of some business planning for FY14 that I have been doing at work. I have found the central methodology really resonating with me and, whilst the book is specifically focused on strategy in business, I think the central themes in the book are equally as applicable to life as they are in the business world.

For the initiated, A G Lafley is a former CEO of Proctor & Gamble whose strategic house was such that under his watch Proctor & Gamble doubled its sales and quadrupled its profits. Roger Martin was Lafley’s strategic adviser in the Proctor & Gamble days and is now the dean of Rotman School of Business in Toronto.

Lafley and Martin’s process of developing and implementing a successful strategy hinges on what they describe as the Five Choices. These choices are integrated and as the authors explain in the book:

These choices and the relationship between them can be understood as a reinforcing cascade, with the choices at the top of the cascade setting the context for the choices below, and the choices at the bottom influencing and refining the choices above.

The five choices are:

1. What is our winning aspiration? This choice, in effect, refers to the purpose of the enterprise for which the strategy is being created.

2. Where will we play? This choice identifies specifically where the product or company will compete.

3. How will we win? This question must be answered with a clear value proposition and a path to competitive advantage.

4. What capabilities must be in place? The question here is to define the activities and competencies that support the where-to-play and how-to-win choices.

5. What management systems are required? The question here is which systems, structures and measures need to be put in place to support the choices made in the previous four questions.

As I noted above I consider this to be an excellent tool for consider strategic imperatives in business. However, I also think that these questions, with some obvious amendments to the nomenclature, create a structure worth following when one considers strategies in life.

When you think about it, with everything that we do in life having a strategy or a plan of action makes the completion of a life task all the more easy. The five choices can be used to give a framework for the reaching of life goals just as much they can for the determining of business strategy.

I challenge you to try the five choices process the next time you are setting yourself a personal goal and let me know if it works. I seems to be working for me.

Vale Hazel Hawke (20 July 1929 – 23 May 2013)

I was saddened to hear of the passing of Hazel Hawke two days ago. I was even more saddened when two of my staff revealed that they did not know who she was. I was going to write in memoriam of her already but the knowledge that some of our young people do not know who she was has spurred me on further. I will write further with respect to my extreme bother at the standard of Australian History teaching our schools.

It would be trite and unfair to say that Hazel Hawke was the wife of a prime minister of Australia and that is all she will be remembered for. Simply put: she was so much more than that. One only needs to have read her autobiography “My Own Life: An Autobiography” to know that. If you have not read her autobiography then read the citation that came with her appointment as an Officer of the Order of Australia. It is:

“For service to the community, particularly through the promotion of the reconciliation process, support for continued improvement in the quality of children’s television, as a contributor to the preservation of heritage items, and involvement with environmental and wildlife preservation groups”.

If you still need convincing that this formidable woman and great Australian was more than just the wife of a prime minister then track down the Australian Story episode which first aired on 3 November 2003. That was the episode in which Hazel Hawke publicly revealed that she was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. Watch that episode and then tell me you are not in awe of the courage this woman showed and I will call you a liar. I am not ashamed at all to admit that I wept.

Since that time the Hazel Hawke Dementia and Care Fund has been in place to support Alzheimer’s sufferers.

I have had moment to revisit Ms Hawke’s autobiography this week: if that only told half the story it would be a wonderful and inspiring story. To that point one would have memorialised her as: wife, mother, first lady, reformer, amateur pianist and patron of the arts and environment. Add to that: advocate of change in the care of those with Alzheimer’s disease and inspiration and that makes this life of this amazing woman one worth remembering.

Vale Hazel: I hope you are at peace now and I hope your family can now rest easier that you are in a better place.