Crikey got it wrong on Sky News voting:

Sky News CEO Angelos Frangopoulos writes: Re. “Vote early and vote often” (yesterday, item 9). Your story regarding repeat voting on www.skynews.com.au is wrong. The repeat voting block is still a feature of the website and always has been. Our new look voting results page launched yesterday omitted the words “You have already voted” on the second and subsequent votes. This did not affect the repeat voting block. We have checked the results and found no evidence of repeat voting. Even your writer observed that despite voting 100 times, they could not sway the vote their way. That is because only the first vote counted. The suggestions that Sky News is facilitating “political manipulation” and must be viewed with the “deepest suspicion” are deeply offensive and false. Crikey has failed to meet the basic standards of journalism by not checking the story before publishing.

Big Brother finale voting above board:

Network Ten Head of Corporate Communications Margaret Fearn writes: Re. “Glenn Dyer’s comments” (yesterday, item 24). Regarding voting during the Big Brother finale Monday night. The vote lines were not held open; they closed exactly at the scheduled time of 8.45pm (AEST). What took longer than envisaged was the counting and verification process. Belong, the company that collates and verifies the voting, issued this statement on Monday night: “Belong would like to confirm that there were no technical issues with the Big Brother finale vote tonight. The vote was the closest ever for a Big Brother finale, and Zach and Aleisha’s positions changed frequently over the last two hour period. At one point towards the end of the counting, only 64 votes separated the two. With so much at stake, we wanted to be absolutely sure of the result. As with all Big Brother voting, auditors were present during the tallying.” Thank you for the opportunity to correct the record.

Nicola Roxon, Emily’s List and junk food:

Emily’s List national co-convener Hutch Hussein writes: Re. “Don’t ban Shrek, ban Emily’s List” (yesterday, item 15). A correction to your story referring to Nicola Roxon as an Emily’s List candidate/MP, within the sentence below. “Rather than banning fast food ads, we could ban Emily’s List, if Roxon represents the standard of its product.” Nicola Roxon has been an attendee at Emily’s List events, but has never been an endorsed Emily’s List candidate/MP. Please ensure your facts are correct.

Nutritionist Dr Rosemary Stanton writes: Christian Kerr’s claim that “if you’re fat or if your kids are, it’s probably because you’re also lazy – too lazy to exercise, too lazy to cook and eat properly and too lazy to fight marketing” shows he has never worked with people suffering from obesity. Blaming the victim is also unlikely to lead to any solutions. Of course, people can make decisions about what they eat and drink, they can learn to cook (it would help if schools taught kids to cook) and they can (usually) do some exercise. But many people are unaware of what is in foods and drinks and the food industry rejects a clear “traffic light” labeling scheme that would make it easy to choose from the 30,000 different foods on offer in a typical supermarket. Many of the two-thirds of Australian men who are too fat are unaware that abdominal fat is a problem and wrongly believe they just have “a bit of a beer gut”. Studies in Victoria also found that most parents do not recognise that their overweight children (especially boys) have a problem because they look pretty much like their friends. Few people in our society make a decision to be fat — it’s more a combination of genes and an environment that makes it difficult for people to make good food and exercise choices. Many people also eat for emotional reasons — including picking up the message from unsympathetic people that fat = lazy. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. Two world experts in food policy (Professor Tim Lang and Dr Geoffrey Rayner of London City University) have stated that obesity is a function of “the rise and rise of car culture and other advances marginalising daily physical activity; widening distances between homes and work or shops; the over consumption of food accompanied by its unprecedented, plentiful availability; the culture of clever and constant advertising flattering choice; the shift from meal-time eating to permanent grazing; the replacement of water by sugary soft drinks; the rising influence of large commercial concerns framing what is available and what sells.” Some of these factors are under individual control; others are related to the way we organise our society to satisfy economic and political ends. Governments must address obesity as the ensuing health care costs will cripple their budgets in the near future. There are things that can be done and finding ways to counteract the efforts of clever marketing gurus that seek to subvert kids is a small start. At least Nicola Roxon is prepared to look at the issue. Some more comprehensive positive policy statements from Kevin Rudd would be welcome. Damning the victims of our obesogenic environment will achieve nothing.

Emma Clark writes: Goodness me Mr Kerr you are the master of the stereotype aren’t you. You state: “The fact remains that if you’re fat or if your kids are, it’s probably because you’re also lazy – too lazy to exercise, too lazy to cook and eat properly and too lazy to fight marketing.” That is not a fact; it is the narrow-minded opinion of a journalist who should know better than to contribute to the perpetuation of horrendous stereotypes that fat people are lazy. There are a great number of people, myself included, who exercise regularly, who cook healthy well balanced meals for themselves and their families, do not succumb to the tricks or temptations of marketers, but are still technically obese. These people suffer on an almost daily basis at the hands of people who read the tripe you have just served as “fact”. Please be more considerate in your writing — the use of stereotypes like the use of sarcasm is indeed the lowest form of communication.

Haneef – Where do we draw the line?:

Henry Ringwood writes: Re. “Haneef: wrong to charge him, right to deport him” (yesterday, item 5). Mr Faris asks “did the Minister properly cancel the visa”? It is clear that the word is used in a “legal” sense. In other words was or is the Minister entitled at law to make the decision? Did he have the legal right to make the decision? I think the view of Mr Faris based upon what has been disclosed to date is correct. Having noted the above I can’t help but ask whether the decision was the “proper” (in the sense of “right” or “appropriate”) one to make in the circumstances. That is a more difficult question. Should a person be deported because he has relatives who are part of a terrorist group? What degree of risk should we as a community accept in this circumstance? Does the “better to be safe than sorry” view of the PM justify the decision of the Minister? Where do we draw the line? At best I am concerned that the Minister has made a decision he perhaps did not need to make and at worst he has deported a responsible and contributing member of our community. I do however support the right of the Minister to make the decision for better or worse.

Terry Pokorny writes: C’mon – reality check time! Do you really believe that Haneef was leaving the sunshine state for a mercy mission back to his caesarean wife? I think most people realise he left for “other” reasons. When you are more mature in your reportage and less conspiratorial, you might appreciate that there are plenty of Australians who actually don’t want even the sniff of terrorism in our country. Why don’t you question the ambulance chasing lawyers who surround Haneef about how they feel about working for a potential terrorist? Imagine interviewing these blokes the same way you would interrogate government ministers. I would have thought that Crikey is a bit smarter – it’s easy to be cynical about almost any government or big business decision – but I would have thought that Crikey would have been absolutely cynical about a bloke who left all his Aussie worldly possessions behind and who bought a one-way ticket to India – gee and his cousins are involved in one of the most infamous terror attacks … sorry incredulous is not quite a big enough term for this issue!

Pamela Curr writes: If Howard et al had not lusted so desperately for electoral advantage, they would have charged Dr Haneef under Terror laws and we would know nothing of the “s-xing up” of the evidence. Dr Haneef would have languished in prison after release on bail and detention through Migration act. The Government would not have the fun of a gorgeous fear campaign — but they would not have egg on their faces either. By the time poor old Dr Haneef went to Court no-one would care that he had been framed by incompetents and he would have been quietly shuffled out of the country, possibly in time for his daughter’s 5th Birthday. If this is what we want for a justice system, let us all shut up now and let the Government get on with turning Australia into a dictatorship.

A sharper political antennae:

Lisa Crago writes: Re. “Kevin Andrews: moronic, not mendacious” (yesterday, item 10). I have to agree with Christian Kerr that “The government could have avoided all this pain with a better minister with sharper political antennae.” However, a simple critique of the Minister’s performance in his two recent high profile portfolios, points clearly to the possibility he is totally devoid of anything as useful as a sharp political antennae. From the damage done to our international reputation and trust in government by this Mr Bean look-a-like, I doubt the Minister could be responsible with a sharp pencil! And the punch line; who ever thought we would miss Amanda Vanstone?

Bill Ronald writes: All through the Haneef affair we have seen the re-emergence of the “strange form of words” syndrome from our leaders which we all know means ar-e covering is going on. Now in the evidence Andrews uses to justify the withdrawal of the visa we see extracts of the purported Haneef chat room conversations that are remarkable for their “strange form of words”. Could I please ask, as I don’t see it reported, what language were the original communications held in? The form of words used sounds to me, like a translation. Anyone with experience in translation knows that often the translator loads the precise words that are used in terms of their own beliefs and values and those synonyms available are far less volatile. So what language were the communications in? Who translated them, and what second opinions have been sought?

The movements of people:

Philip Hunt writes: Re. “Flint: It’s the elites who debase the rule of law” (Tuesday, item 13). David Flint wrote: “Otherwise we would be creating a right in all foreigners to enter this country, which would be untenable.” Perhaps David Flint would like to make out the case for this statement. If we didn’t have borders, we would hardly need border patrols. If we believe, as our present Federal government avows, in the primacy of market forces, why does it not apply the same principle to movements of people as it does to movements of capital?

What a disgrace!:

Gerard McEwen writes: Note to Noel Tarlinton (yesterday, comments). I’d trust Tony Mokbel ahead of the current regime at the AFP. Remember their disruption activities leading to the tragedy of SIEV X and their deliberate exposure of Australian citizens to the death penalty in Bali? What a disgrace!

What mastery of investigative journalism:

Peter Lawson writes: Re. “Conspiracies are more fun than practical politics” (yesterday, item 11). Christian Kerr, you commented in your article that “The Australian Labor Party does not even claim to be a Socialist Party.” I am astounded. What mastery of investigative journalism allowed you to come to this conclusion? You would find, if the ALP had an up and running National Platform and Constitution, that it does indeed regard itself an a “Socialist Party”. It has membership of the Socialist International society. Christian, you have to be better at your job than this, you are paid to write, and your material should contain relevant facts and truths.

Nothing really changes in Defence, does it?:

Graham Bell writes: Re. “Defence contractors and racial discrimination exemptions” (yesterday, item 9). Way back during the Viet-Nam War, a soldier in SAS (and now a successful and prominent member of the community) was not allowed to go to Viet-Nam with his squadron because of security concerns about being born in a Communist country. That his family migrated to Australia when he was only a young lad didn’t matter at all. Several months later, some bureaucrat must have got hold of a kiddies’ school atlas and made the brilliant discovery that the soldier was actually born in a friendly NATO country and not behind the Iron Curtain as was first thought. (What Place-of-birth had to do with Loyalty remains unclear)? The soldier was then permitted to join his squadron in Viet-Nam…. and then over many years, served in the Australian Defence Force with distinction. Nothing really changes in Defence, does it?

Amanda Vanstone on a Vespa:

Tom McLoughlin writes: Re. Your vicious, hilarious arts correspondent from Rome (yesterday, comments). With such a razor wit I wonder they missed their calling — Immigration slicing and dicing hapless refugees? Social Security roasting the Aboriginal unemployed? It does get hot over there even next to Garibaldi’s statue high on a hill over looking the city. Even so nothing quite as chilly as the spooky St Peters with a huge obelisk in the middle erected by Caligula (assisted by a few hundred doomed Egyptian slaves) or the guy selling Bin Laden key rings outside Termini rail station. Just imagine Amanda Vanstone on a Vespa. Whoa. Just as well the local pizza is so skinny.

The big whales in white collar crime remain afloat:

Chris Seage writes: Peter Evans (yesterday, comments) is right with nearly everything he said. Unfortunately he missed my point. I think the DPP should be more proactive in what cases are being sent to him by other government agencies. For example, a good DPP would question why the ATO sent the Glenn Wheatley case to him which involved evaded tax of $318,000 and not the top 100 company that avoided $70 million dollars. His job is to ensure the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth is being applied even-handedly, without fear of favour. How can he say this while he prosecutes bucket loads of low level welfare fraud while the big whales in white collar crime remain afloat?

The trouble with Triple J:

Mark Phillips writes: Re. “The trouble with Triple J” (Tuesday, item 19). Triple J has been on a downward spiral ever since it went national. Not only has this meant creeping blandness and a programming straitjacket, but it also contributed to the stagnation/decline of Sydney’s live music scene in the early-1990s, as chronicled in my book about the history of Melbourne’s independent community station 3RRR-FM, Radio City (published by The Vulgar Press in November last year, Triple R’s 30th birthday). In its early days in the mid-70s, 2JJ was virtually identical to the freeform community radio model that emerged at the same time, even though it was owned by the ABC, and that eclectic approach to programming helped to nourish the Sydney’s punk and independent music scene throughout the ’80s. When the newly-corporate Triple J went national and began broadcasting in Melbourne a decade and a half ago, it sent a frisson of fear through Triple R, but within a few months that had abated when everyone realised just how lame JJJ was — and it has never out-rated Triple R since, despite the Melbourne station being run on a fraction of the budget. My advice to anyone disappointed with the modern Triple J is to switch your dial to truly innovative, eclectic, non-mainstream and challenging community radio, whether it be 3RRR or 3PBS in Melbourne (who can both be streamed over the internet), or your local community station.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.